Kerala High Court
Veeran Kutty.K vs M/S. Sundaram Home Finance Ltd on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
VEERAN KUTTY.K.,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.KUNCHAYIN, HIBA HOUSE, KURUNGOTTUMMAL,
PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE-673 019.
BY ADVS.
T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
C.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 M/S. SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, BMT CENTRE, MINI BYE PASS ROAD,
PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 004, REPRESNETED BY
ITS MANAGER.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/S. SUNDARAM HOME
FINANCE LTD.,
SUNDARAM TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NO.46, WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI-600 014.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.VARGHESE C KURIAKOSE, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2021
-2-
A.M.BADAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, by this petition has prayed for
directing the respondents to restructure and reschedule all
loans, after deducting penal interest and incidental charges
and to grant an extended repayment holiday period of one
year for repayment of loan after restructuring and
rescheduling the loan.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had repaid the loan amount of about
Rs.1.43 crores and on earlier occasion he had approached
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2021
this Court seeking instalment for repayment of loan.
Accordingly, he was granted permission to repay the loan
of instalments. However, though the judgment was partly
complied by the petitioner, he could not comply the
judgment after May 2021 due to business issues and
therefore, the respondents be directed to restructure and
reschedule the loan accounts availed by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to claim
restructure or reschedule of all loan accounts as that is
prerogative of the respondents. He submits that the
respondent is a Housing Financial Institution, against which
a writ cannot lie. It is further urged that on earlier
occasion, this court granted the relief, as prayed by the
petitioner with a default clause. As the petitioner has failed
to comply with that judgment, the petitioner is not entitled
to get the relief as prayed for.
5. I have gone through the submission made by the
petitioner and also perused the materials placed before me.
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2021
The petitioner has availed the loan from the respondents,
which is a Housing Finance Institution, for running a super
market, under name and style 'Hiba Supermarket'. The
petitioner has defaulted in repayment of that loan of
Rs.86.40 lakhs. The petitioner approached this court by
filing Writ Petition No.6194 of 2021. During hearing of
that petition, statement was made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, on instructions, regarding the mode by
which the overdue amount as well as instalment. That
petition came to be disposed of with the following
directions:-
"The petitioner to pay 20% of the overdue
amount, interest and incidental charges on or
before 31.03.2021. The petitioner should repay
the balance overdue amount with interest and
incidental charges in 15 equated successive
monthly instalments commencing from
26.04.2021 along with regular EMIs. If the
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2021
petitioner follows these directions, then the
respondents are directed to keep the pending
action under the SARFAESI Act initiated against
the petitioner in abeyance. A single default on the
part of the petitioner in compliance with these
directions shall entail the respondents to continue
with the coercive action initiated against the
petitioner. No further extension of time shall be
granted to the petitioner for compliance with
these directions."
6. Undisputedly, the petitioner failed to comply and
honour the commitment made by him to the respondents
before this court, while disposing W.P(C) No.6194/2021.
While disposing of that petition, this court had directed that
a single default on the part of the petitioner in compliance
with the direction can ental the respondents to continue
with the coercive action initiated under the SARFAESI Act
against the petitioner and no further extention of time shall
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2021
be granted to the petitioner for compliance of the direction.
In the light of this order, the petitioner cannot now seek for
further extention of time for repayment of loan under the
guise of restructure and reschedule of loan accounts. The
judgment on Ext.P1 has attained finality and any further
order deviating the course of action directed in the said
judgment would be violating the judicial propriety.
7. It is so prerogative of the respondents Housing
Finance Institution to decide whether the loan of the
petitioner can be restructured or rescheduled and whether
an extended repayment holiday can be granted to the
petitioner. The respondent is the Housing Financial
Institution and as such, no such relief as prayed by the
petitioner can be granted in the Writ judicial by this court.
This petition is, as such, devoid of merit and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
sd
A.M.BADAR, JUDGE.
dl/
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13426/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Exhibit P1 THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2021 IN WPC
NO.6194 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER
DATED 26.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
