Renjith P.P vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 8704 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.6774 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER/S:

      1         RENJITH P.P.
                AGED 48 YEARS
                S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN, PUTHUSSERIYIL HOUSE, NETTOOR
                P.O.NEAR KUMARAPURAM SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE ERNAKULAM

      2         AMBILY C.A,
                AGED 45 YEARS
                W/O RENJITH P.P, PUTHUSSERIYIL HOUSE, NETTOOR
                P.O.NEAR KUMARAPURAM SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE ERNAKULAM

                BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR)

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE
                AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, STATE RELIEF COMMISSIONER
                AND CONVENOR, STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
                OBSERVATORY HILLS, VIKAS BHAVAN
                P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

      2         RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
                KALOOR, KOCHI-18.

      3         THE MANAGER,
                PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD, 48/559C.1ST FLOOR, RP ARCADE
                THAMMANAM LANE, PONNURUNNI VYTTILA P.O.KOCHI-19.

      4         THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
                PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD, 48/559C, 1ST FLOOR, RP
                ARCADE THAMMANAM LANE, PONNURUNNI VYTTILA P.O.KOCHI-
                19.


OTHER PRESENT:

                GP- SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6774 OF 2021(V)

                                      2

                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of March 2021

Petitioner has made the following prayers in the instant writ

petition.

(I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order and thereby direct the 4th respondent to dispose Ext.P2 representation in a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction and allow the petitioner to remit the dues in 12 monthly instalments along with regular instalments.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. She argued

that the secured assets are comprising of residential house of the

petitioners and the petitioners were punctual in repaying the loan.

However due to Covid-19 pandemic, loan could not be repaid in time

and therefore, the petitioners want to repay the loan in 12

instalments. The learned counsel for the petitioners insisted for stay.

The communication at Ext.P2, which is a possession notice issued by

the 4th respondent under the SARFAESI Act. I have considered the

submissions so advanced and perused the materials placed before me.

3. It is case of the petitioners that they had availed financial

assistance from PNB Housing Finance Limited by mortgaging the

residential house. Undisputedly, the petitioners have defaulted in

repayment of loan and therefore, as seen from communication at WP(C).No.6774 OF 2021(V)

Ext.P2 that vide demand notice dated 17.06.2020, the entire loan

amount to the tune of Rs.21,06,323.34/- came to be recalled. The

petitioners failed to comply with the demand notice and therefore, the

action under the SARFAESI Act proceeded further and ultimately

culminated into issuance of the possession notice at Ext.P2. The

petitioners are seeking stay to this possession notice which is not

permissible in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

matter of Authorised Officer, SBT & Another Vs. Mathew K.C.,

reported in ((2018) 3 SCC 85 (DB).

4. The petitioner is also seeking instalments for repayment of

loan. The petitioners were already having facility of instalment in this

contractual matter, which they failed to avail. Grant of instalment

amounts to regularization of the loan and that too, is the sole

prerogative of the respondents No. 3 and 4. This Court cannot compel

the respondents to regularize the loan for grant of instalments.

In this view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merit and the

same is dismissed. However, it is observed that the 4 th respondent is

free to decide the representation at Ext.P3.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.6774 OF 2021(V)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT SHOWING THE LOAN INFORMATION OF THE PETITIONERS

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 8(1) OF SARFAEST ACT

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SHOWING THE ISSUANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.1.2021