Disposed

Vincent T.D v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC8 Mar 2016WP(C)/90/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. against a loan defaulter. The High Court directed the corporation to stay further proceedings if the petitioner pays the outstanding amount in four equal monthly installments starting March 23, 2016, while continuing original schedule payments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay overdue amount and accrued interest in four equal monthly installments; proceedings stayed pending compliance with original schedule.

Vincent T.D Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/18TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 90 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

VINCENT T.D., AGED 45 YEARS SON OF DEVASSIA, THANDEL HOUSE, EDOOR PAYAM P.O., IRITTY, KANNUR - 670 704.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY

¶9

SRI.K.V.GEORGE

¶10

SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.P.S.GIREESH SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., ERNAKULAM BACK OFFICE 9TH FLOOR, LIC BUILDING, M.G.ROAD ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶13

2. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD.,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER KANNUR BUSINESS CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, UNION COMPLEX SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR - 670 002.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 90 of 2016 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF SANCTION LETTER NO.5207000608 DATED 18.09.2012 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 09.07.2015 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 25.11.2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶30

W.P.(C).NO.90 OF 2016 (I)

¶31

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner, who had availed of a loan from the respondent corporation, defaulted in repayment of the same. Consequently the respondent corporation initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act', to recover the loan amounts. Ext.P3 is the possession notice issued to the petitioner by the respondent corporation. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent corporation for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent corporation.

¶35

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that the sole prayer

¶36

W.P.(C).No.90/2016

¶37

¶38

of the petitioner is to permit him to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the respondent corporation in easy installments. Taking into account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶39

(i) The overdue amount in respect of the loan availed by the petitioner, as on 18.1.2016, is stated to be Rs.3,99,606/- together with accrued interest. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the said amount of Rs.3,99,606/- together with accrued interest from 18.1.2016, in four equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 23.3.2016, and continues to keep up the regular installment payments as per the original loan schedule, then the further proceedings initiated against him by the respondent corporation shall be kept in abeyance.

¶40

(ii) It is further made clear that if the petitioner commits a default in respect of any of the installments, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondent corporation will be free to continue the recovery proceedings against him from the stage at which they presently stand.

¶41

(iii) The respondent corporation shall furnish the petitioner with an up-to-date statement of the dues position together with interest within ten days from

¶42

W.P.(C).No.90/2016

¶43

¶44

today so as to enable the petitioner to discharge his liability in accordance with the directions in this judgment.

¶45

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶46

prp/8/3/16

Vincent T.D v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent T.D v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rison K.K Vs the Manager Kerala Gramin Bank

M/S. Annai Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Mohammad Madani Vs the Tahsildar

Sunil Kumar T Vs Authorised Officer

Shaju Vs Kollam District Co-Operative Bank

Joseph Varkey, Vs the Branch Manager