Disposed

Preetha v. the Authorised Officer, Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Kerala HC16 Dec 2014WP(C)/23628/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged SARFAESI Act proceedings regarding a defaulted home loan. Court permitted clearing the overdue amount in four instalments pending regularization and kept coercive proceedings in abeyance, revocable on further default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to clear overdue amount in four monthly instalments; coercive proceedings kept in abeyance pending regularization.

Preetha Vs the Authorised Officer, Repco Home Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 23628 of 2014 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

PREETHA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.ANIL KUMAR, ANIL BHAVAN, MANAKKARA SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM DIST, PIN-690521

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD. IST FLOOR, KRISHNASWAMY AVANUE, CONVENT ROAD BEHIND DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM PIN-691010

¶13

2. THE MANAGER

¶14

REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD, KOLLAM BRANCH, IST FLOOR KRISHNASWAMY AVANUE, CONVENT ROAD BEHIND DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM PIN-691010

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 23628 of 2014 (C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 24/6/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD 20/8/2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶29

========================

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 23628 of 2014

¶31

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner availed a loan of ₹12.50 lakhs from the respondent financial institution in the year 2011 creating security interest over the property in question. But the repayment could not be effected promptly, when the respondents proceeded against the petitioner by resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the default was never wilful, but due to some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner does not dispute the liability to clear the due amount or the rights and liberties of the respondents in proceeding against the petitioner. The limited relief now pressed before this Court is to permit the petitioner to clear the 'overdue' amount, granting some breathing time in this regard and to have the loan account regularized.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent financial institution submits on instructions that, the total outstanding liability to close the loan account as on 10.12.2014 is nearly 18.75 lakhs out of₹ which a sum of 6.15 lakhs is in respect of the defaulted instalments₹ after giving due credit to the amount of 50,000/- paid pursuant to the₹ interim order dated 3.9.2014.

¶36

W.P.C. No. 23628 of 2014

¶37

-2-

¶38

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the 'overdue' amount by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 31^st day of December, 2014; followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. This shall be in addition to satisfaction of the regular EMIs as well. Subject to this, the loan account will stand regularized. The coercive proceedings being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed with regard to repayment of the over due amount as above, or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMIs, it will be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for realization of the entire amount in a lump, from the stage where it stands now. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶41

kp/-

Preetha v. the Authorised Officer, Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetha v. the Authorised Officer, Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Biju T. Vs State Bank of India

Fr.Mathew Vaniyapurackal,Manager,Kottaya Vs State of Kerala and Others

Excel Timbers Pvt.Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of It

K.Chandran Pillai Vs State of Kerala and Others

Leela Jose Vs the District Collector and 2 Others

Balachandran G Vs Secrtary(Requistion Authority)