In a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought restraint on taking possession of his house mortgaged under a home loan taken by his deceased wife. The court noted that no recovery action was pending when the petition was filed and disposed of the matter.
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.
CWP No.16195 of 2011 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16195 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 24.09.2012
Amrik Singh
-----Petitioner
Vs.
ICICI Home Loan and Finance Company Limited and others
----Respondents
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
Present:Mr. S.K.Daaria, Advocate for Mr. R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Nitin Grover, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
2
CWP No.16195 of 2011 (O&M)
8 lacs and order for cumulative disbursement of amount of 6,80,000/- was passed. The said house was mortgaged with respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The respondents had also charged for home loan insurance cover from the wife of the petitioner and assured that in case of critical illness or any unforeseen event, her family will be protected from the burden of paying EMIs for the outstanding home loan. The outstanding amount of home loan was to be automatically paid for by the home insurance cover. The wife of the petitioner paid the installments regularly from 5.6.2003 till her death on 1.10.2006. After her death, the petitioner - husband also continued to pay the installments till 24.1.2008. Thereafter, the collection agent of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 told the petitioner that he was not required to pay the future installments of the outstanding balance amount as the same would be adjusted from home loan insurance cover. The petitioner thereafter neither deposited any installment nor any collection agent came to collect the amount. In the month of March 2009, when the petitioner visited the bank for release of the documents of the house, he was intimated that the loan amount was over due towards the loan account of his deceased wife. The petitioner again deposited some amount by way ofCWP No.16195 of 2011 (O&M)
3
cheque till 28.12.2010. The petitioner also sent cheques for the months of January 2011 to May 2011. In the month of July 2011, the petitioner was intimated by respondent No.2 that the loan account of his wife had been sold by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Asset Reconstruction Company India limited. The petitioner visited the office of respondent No.5 and on payment of ` 960/-, he was supplied the statement of loan account. He was shocked to see the charges and penalties worth thousands of rupees levied by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by alleging the same to be overdue charges. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court through the present writ petition.
CWP No.16195 of 2011 (O&M)
4
SARFAESI Act on 26.11.2011 (Annexure P.10). However, the petitioner has not filed any reply to the said notice. It shall be open to the petitioner to file reply to the notice Annexure P.10 in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
September 24, 2012 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia) 'gs' Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to restrain respondents from taking possession of the house under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether to direct respondents to settle the home loan account without charging penal interest.
Amrik Singh
ICICI Home Loan and Finance Company Limited
Ajay Kumar Mittal
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court