Dismissed

Mrs. Soudamini v. Dewan Housing Finance Ltd.

Kerala HC21 Oct 2013WP(C)/23199/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a writ petition challenging the rate of interest against a private financing company is not maintainable under Article 226, per Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas. Remedies lie with the Banking Ombudsman or under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. Status quo granted for two weeks to pursue said remedies.

What did the court decide?

Status quo ordered for two weeks to enable petitioners to approach Banking Ombudsman or invoke Kerala Money Lenders Act.

Mrs. Soudamini Vs Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23199 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

----------------------------------------AGAINST NOTICE DATED 2.9.13 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CMP 5091/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

1. MRS. SOUDAMINI AGED 51 YEARS W/O.K.V.VASANTHAN, SOORAJ BHAVAN, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O. KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶9

2. MR.VASANTHAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O.LATE A KARTHIKEYAN, SOORAJ BHAVAN SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JOYI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶12

DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, AT IST FLOOR, K.M.M. BUILDING PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI. PAULOCHAN ANTONY P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DCS

¶16

WP(C).No. 23199 of 2013 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1: DEMAND NOTICE U/S 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT DATED 12.11.2008.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2: NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN C.M.P.NO.5091/2013 DATED 2.9.13.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN W.P.(C) 21668/2013 DATED 2.9.2013.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶27

------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 23199 of 2013

¶28

-----------------------------------------

¶29

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2013

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioners have obviously not complied with the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No. 329/2010 filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent points out that the overdue amount in the housing loan which expires in the year 2022 is Rs.18,16,478/- as against the total liability of Rs. 30,45,408/-.

¶32

The petitioner seriously assails the rate of interest charged by the respondent for which there cannot be an adjudication in this writ petition. The respondent is only a private financing company and the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as held in Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas [2003 (3) KLT 876) . The remedy if any of the petitioner is to move the Banking Ombudsman or under the provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act on valid and sufficient grounds.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 23199 of 2013

¶34

¶35

The status quo as on today shall however continue for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioners to work out their remedy as above.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶38

DCS

Mrs. Soudamini v. Dewan Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Soudamini v. Dewan Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumoni Paul Vs State

P.S.Kurian @ Anujan Anthikayam Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Sebastian Chokkattu Vs Kerala State Industries Development Corporation Ltd.

Sreekrishna Hardware Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Kvat)

V.P.Joy Vs District Collector