Disposed

Shri Bikshapathy Damera v. M/s.Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited

Telangana HC22 Jul 2019WP/9198/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's attempt to sell a secured residential house under the SARFAESI Act. The Court permitted the defaulters to regularise their account by paying a specific lump sum amount within four weeks. Upon payment, the bank must regularise the account, enabling the petitioners to resume regular EMIs, thereby quashing the immediate threat of sale.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to pay Rs. 8,12,357/- within four weeks. Upon payment, respondent company to regularise housing loan account.

Shri Bikshapathy Damera Vs M/s.Sundaram Bnp Paribas… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.KESHAVA RAO

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON NO.9198 OF 2019

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶5

The petitioners assail the action of Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited (hereinafter, ‘the respondent company’) in proceeding under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, ‘the SARFAESI Act’), vide Crl.M.P.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Warangal, and in bringing to sale their secured residential house on 08.04.2019 pursuant to the sale notice dated 28.02.2019. The petitioners first approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, by way of S.A.No.87 of 2019 challenging the sale notice dated 28.02.2019 and the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.20 of 2016. By Docket Order dated 09.04.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.1267 and 1269 of 2019 filed by the petitioners in the said securitization application, the Tribunal granted interim stay of all further proceedings including taking over of physical possession of the secured house property subject to the condition that the petitioners deposited 25% of the total outstanding dues as set out in the possession notice dated 19.10.2015 in two instalments. The first instalment of 10% was to be deposited within two weeks from the date of the order while the second instalment of 15% was to be deposited within two weeks thereafter. Having paid the first instalment, the petitioners came before this Court.

¶6

By order dated 26.04.2019 passed in this writ petition, this Court, having taken note of the fact that the loan availed by the petitioners was in the nature of a housing loan and that the petitioners had already paid the first instalment as per the Tribunal’s order, extended time up to 31.05.2019 to the petitioners to pay the second instalment. It is an admitted fact that the second instalment was paid only on 26.06.2019, well beyond the stipulated date.

¶7

¶8

While matters stood thus, Sri T.Nagender, learned counsel for the petitioners, informed this Court that the petitioners are desirous of regularising their housing loan account.

¶9

Sri L.Jagannadham, learned counsel for the respondent company, having secured instructions in this regard, informed this Court that in the event the petitioners pay a sum of Rs.8,12,357/- within four weeks from today, the respondent company is willing to regularise their housing loan account.

¶10

Sri T.Nagender, learned counsel, expressed his agreement to abide by this stipulation.

¶11

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.8,12,357/- (Rupees eight lakh twelve thousand three hundred and fifty seven only) within four weeks from today, i.e., before 5.00 PM on 19.08.2019, be it in instalments or by way of a lump sum amount. Upon such deposit, the respondent company shall take necessary steps for regularisation of the petitioners’ housing loan account. The petitioners shall thereafter pay their equated monthly instalments on a regular basis and avoid further default. In the event the petitioners fail to pay the amount as stipulated supra, it is open to the respondent company to contest the pending securitisation application on merits and take appropriate action in terms thereof.

¶12

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶13

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶14

___________________ P.KESHAVA RAO, J

¶15

22^nd JULY, 2019 Svv

Shri Bikshapathy Damera v. M/s.Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bikshapathy Damera v. M/s.Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited

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

The District Manager Vs The Authorized Officer and another

M/s. Rsr Jewellers Pvt. Limited Vs State Bank of India and 5 others

Mr. Syed Baba Jani Vs Icici Bank Limited

Mrs. Syed Yasmeen Vs M/s. Edelweiss Housing Finance Limited

Dr v B Tarakeshwar Vs T Nagaswara Rao

Ecologique Petro Chemicals Vs M/s Research Center for Fuel Generation