Disposed

Neethu B Nair, v. the Muthoot Homefin (India), Ltd.

Kerala HC5 Dec 2023WP(C)/29566/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged coercive recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Court allowed temporary relief granting short time to clear overdue amount. Directs repayment in installments. Continues coercive proceedings only upon default.

What did the court decide?

Overdue payment of ₹6,45,316/- to be paid in four monthly installments; coercive proceedings deferred if directed payments are made.

Neethu B Nair, Vs the Muthoot Homefin… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 29566 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

NEETHU B NAIR, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. LATE MANOJKUMAR, KRISHNAMRUTHAM,KUZGHIYARA PO, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 312.

¶7

BY ADVS.

¶8

ANOOP JOSEPH ZERENE LINDA MITCHEL ASWANI THUVVAKKADAN V.C.SURESH BABU ATHULYA K.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MUTHOOT HOMEFIN (INDIA), LTD., PUTHERIKKAL BUILDINGS, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS.GENERAL MANAGER., PIN – 682 018.

¶11

2 THE GENERAL MANAGER, MUTHOOT HOMEFIN (INDIA) LTD., PUTHERIKKAL BUILDINGS, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 018.

¶12

3 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE MUTHOOT HOMEFIN (INDIA) LTD., PUTHERIKKAL BUILDINGS, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN – 682 018.

¶13

BY ADV

¶14

C.H.ABDUL RASAC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.29566 of 2023

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2023

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶21

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶22

The respondents paid ₹23 lakhs to the petitioner and her husband as Home Loan. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they could not pay the repayment installments promptly later. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to unforeseen circumstances. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.29566 of 2023

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

Though the petitioner requested the respondents

¶26

to permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly installments, the respondent authorities were not yielding. The authorities, instead, started coercive proceedings, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and issued Ext.P1 notice.

¶27

The petitioner states that she is still in a position to clear the overdue amounts towards the loan, if sufficient time is given to clear the dues in easy monthly installments. If the respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the petitioner, she will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶28

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶29

W.P.(C) No.29566 of 2023

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

The respondents repeatedly reminded the

¶32

petitioner and required her to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the respondents had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking, the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Ext.P1 was issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the respondent.

¶33

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial payment soon and remit the balance overdue amount immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the respondents from the petitioner is ₹30,51,451/- and the overdue amount as on 31.09.2023 is ₹6,45,316/-.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.29566 of 2023

¶35

: 5 :

¶36

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶37

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

¶38

The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been making the repayment and maintaining the loan account initially. The default in repayment of the loan occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has provided substantial security which will safeguard the interest of the respondents.

¶39

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving a short and reasonable time to the petitioner to clear off her liability.

¶40

The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:

¶41

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of ₹6,45,316/- in four equal and consecutive monthly installments along with accruing interest and other administrative charges, if any.

¶42

W.P.(C) No.29566 of 2023

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

(ii) First of such installment shall be paid

¶45

on or before 31.12.2023.

¶46

(iii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶47

(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current

¶48

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

¶49

(v) If the petitioner pays the installments

¶50

as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶53

AMR

¶54

W.P.(C) No.29566 of 2023

¶55

: 7 :

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29566/2023

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 02.02.2 023 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 12747/2023 DATED 03.07.2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF DEATH OF
	PUBLIC HEALTH SECTION, DOHA DATED 19.07.2023.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF REGISTRATION OF DEATH OF INDIAN CITIZENS ISSUED BY THE EMBASSY OF INDIA, DOHA, QATAR DATED 19.07.2023.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.08.2023 MADE TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT, THE GENERAL MANAGER, MUTHOOT HOMEFIN (INDIA) LTD. MARKET ROAD, KOCHI.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 18.08.2023 OF THE EXT. P5 REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT AND SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GAUTHAM WELLNESS LLP.

Neethu B Nair, v. the Muthoot Homefin (India), Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neethu B Nair, v. the Muthoot Homefin (India), Ltd.

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

Rehna Muhammed Salih Vs the Village Officer

Renjith V.S. Vs the Authorised Officer

Muhammed Ali Jawahar Vs the Special Sale Officer

Aswathy Mohan Vs the Manager

Usha.K., Vs Vallikkunnu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.M4

Sivan. v, Vs the Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank LTD.T.1761