The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a housing loan defaulting petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was disentitled to discretionary or equitable consideration due to prior defaults and failure to appear for mediation, noting that loan rescheduling is the creditor's prerogative.
No order on costs.
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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 8021 of 2018
PETITIONER:
HAKKIM S., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.M.SHAREEF RAWTHER, THAHA MANZIL, KALLATHANI, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV.SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., THACHAMPARA BRANCH, BRANCH CODE-33, PALAKKAD-678 311.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 8021 of 2018 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE |
|---|---|
| PETITIONER'S PASS BOOK IN A/C.NO.33-526-283 OF RESPONDENT BANK. |
|
| EXHIBIT P2 | COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.10.2014 |
| ISSUED AS PER C.M.P. NO.2156/2014 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD. |
|
| EXHIBIT P3 |
COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.29017/2014 OF THIS COURT DATED 05.11.2014. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU J.
W.P.(C)No.8021 of 2018
Dated this the 6th day of July 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner took Rs.5 lakh as housing loan from the respondent bank. Later, he defaulted on repayment, apparently, owing to his financial stringency. As a result, the respondent Bank served notice on the petitioner, demanding him to repay the loan.
tried to clear the accumulated dues in his loan account, he could not succeed as his financial problems persisted. When the respondent bank proceeded against the petitioner by resorting to the remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.29017 of 2014. This Court, through Ext.P3 judgment, dt.05.11.2014, allowed the petitioner to pay the arrears in
W.P.(C)No.8021 of 2018 2
eight instalments. The petitioner failed.
W.P.(C)No.8021 of 2018
3
bank officials to respond to the petitioner's demand for instalments. Instalments he has since inception; what the petitioner now wanted is a rescheduling of the loan, which is the creditor's prerogative. And it is not in this Court's province. The bank's allegation of trespass, too, remains unrebutted.
For the above reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. No order on costs.
Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
sd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking equitable relief from the petitioner on a housing loan default should be allowed.
Whether the court can compel the bank to reschedule the loan or respond to the petitioner's demands.
Whether the bank's allegations of trespass on the secured property remain unrebutted.
HAKKIM S.
THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., THACHAMPARA BRANCH
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
