Writ appeal against Single Judge order in a money recovery suit involving housing loan. Court held that One Time Settlement scheme is available and proceedings in the underlying writ petition stood in abeyance until the scheme expiry.
Proceedings pursuant to notices kept in abeyance until 30/6/2014; respondent to serve accounts for One Time Settlement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WA.No. 217 of 2014 () IN WP(C).30975/2013 -------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30975/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-12-2013 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
SULOCHANA, AGED 58 YEARS W/O. LATE T.K.NARAYANAN, THANDANKANDI HOUSE KARUVANNOOR P.O., KARUVANNOOR AMSOM DESOM QUILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673614.
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
R BY SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. M. JOSEPH & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JJ
W.A.No. 217 OF 2014
Dated this the 21st day of March 2014
J U D G M E N T
K.M. Joseph, J
The appellant is the writ petitioner. Her husband availed
the housing loan from the respondents. Ext.P4 notice was issued to the petitioner. She challenged Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is actually sale proceedings under Section 49 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. She approached this court seeking the following reliefs;
i). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P4.
ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to extend One time Settlement facility with installment facility to liquidate the liability on account of the housing loan availed by the petitioner's late husband;
iii). Declare that the respondents are not entitled to demand or recover interest in excess of the principal amount at no point of time during the pendency of the as the rule of 'damdupat' is applicable to the mortgaged liability created by the petitioner's husband.
The petitioner's husband had availed a housing loan of
Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondents in the year 1999 and he
W.A No.217/2014 2
died of cardiac arrest on 28/02/2000. Consequently, the unemployed petitioner, who has to maintain two minor children could not repay the loan as the sole earning member of her family , died. The respondents had fixed monthly installments for repayment of the loan at the rate of Rs.2,850/- per month. The said monthly installment is one arraived at on applying interest at the rate of 12.25% on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the repayment period. Thus the respondents had already applied interest on the loan amount at 12.25 % while stipulating the monthly installments.
Alleging default on repayment of the loan, the 1st respondent has now put the mortgaged property for sale for recovery of Rs.4,06, 815/- with further interest and costs. On enquiry with the respondents, she has been directed to remit Rs...7,51,880/- to settle the liability, which would clearly establish that the respondents have applied exorbitant interest and penal interest on the defaulted installments which has been drawn up applying interest.
Even though the respondents have extended One Time Settlement facility on total waiver of penal interest and 70% waiver of interest to several borrowers, such a facility has not
W.A No.217/2014 3
been extended to the petitioner. The petitioner is prepared to settle the liability to save her residential property provided she is given such a facility applying interest on the loan amount of Rs.1,50.000/-. The One time Settlement facility is a non discretionary and non discriminatory facility and the petitioner is fully entitled for the benefit of the same. Hence the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P4 directing the respondents to extent One Time Settlement facility on 100% waiver of the penal interest and waiver of 70% of the interest charged on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of the aggregate of the installment amounts. Hence this writ petition.
4
W.A No.217/2014
The writ appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE . Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
Dpk.
/true copy/ PS to Judge.
W.A No.217/2014 5
Sulochana
The Authorized Officer/Accounts Officer, Kerala State Housing Board
The Special Deputy Collector, Kerala State Housing Board
The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board
The Kerala State Housing Board
K. M. Joseph
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
