Disposed

Sudhy Surendran v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC2 Jun 2017WA/1052/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court informed the borrower household of a two-month commuting payment to clear default under SARFAESI Act initiated by the bank, allowing continuation of original EMI thereabouts thereafter, subject to strict adherence.

What did the court decide?

Direct appellant to deposit Rs. 30,000/month for six months to clear default, thereafter pay original EMI till loan liquidation, subject to strict adherence.

Sudhy Surendran Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 1052 of 2017 () IN WP(C).16310/2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16310/2017 DATED 16.5.2017

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS :-

¶9

1. SUDHY SURENDRAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE SURENDRAN,

¶10

RESIDING AT SUDHY BHAVAN, NARANGANAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶11

2. SOBHANA SURENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. LATE SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT SUDHY BHAVAN, NARANGANAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :-

¶14

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SECURITIZATION ACT HDFC BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, HAVING OFFICE AT HDFC LTD, HDFC HOUSE, P.B. NO.2288, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY SMT.S.AMBILY

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sou.

¶18

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ &

¶19

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

¶20

W.A. No. 1052 of 2017

¶21

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2017

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ

¶24

The writ petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.5.2017 in W.P(C).No.16310 of 2017 refusing to grant the relief sought for, has filed this intra court appeal.

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants and the learned counsel for the HDFC Bank at length and with their consent we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the appellants' father along with the appellants, who are son and mother, had taken two housing loans. The sum total EMI of the two loans is less than Rs. 5,000/per month. The father suddenly died. The family went through trouble times by the untimely death causing substantial default in the payment of the EMI. Accordingly, HDFC Bank initiated process under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of its dues. The

¶27

W.A.1052/17 2

¶28

appellants are threatened with not only dispossession but sale of the house. All this was for recovery of a total amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, out of which, the default amount is about Rs.1.32 Lakhs.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Bank fairly states that the Bank is neither interested in the property nor in making the appellants homeless. They are interested in their money alone. The counsel for the appellants states that looking into the circumstances, if the appellants are given some indulgence, they would be in a position to regularise the loan to save their residential house, which is valued much more than the total loan amount. The Bank is agreeable that if the loan is regularised by clearing the default, then they would regularise the loan on the EMI already fixed.

¶30

Having considered the matter, we direct, as last indulgence, that the appellants' should deposit Rs.30,000/every month beginning from 10^th of this month and continue to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the next six months. The Bank accepts that this would clear the default as well as take care of the six months EMI and if this payment is punctually made, then from the 7^th month onwards, the appellants would be

¶31

¶32

W.A.1052/17

¶33

required to pay the EMI loans till liquidation of the loan. This would also take care substantially of the accrued interest.

¶34

Parties to adhere to the said time schedule strictly and no further indulgence would be granted to the appellants in case of any default for whatsoever reason and in the event of such default, the Bank would be free to initiate or take any action that they may be legally entitled to.

¶35

This appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶37

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Judge

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶40

sou.2/6.

Sudhy Surendran v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhy Surendran 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

T.S.Sunil Kumar Vs Indian Bank

M.K. Krishnan Vs Kerala Forest Development Corporation

Jose Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Renuka R.P. Vs Kerala State Human Rights Commission

The Cochin Port Trust Vs R.Krishnamoorthy

George P.J Vs the Authorized Officer