Kamalakshi vs The Manager, Bank Of Baroda ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6846 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 24243 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     KAMALAKSHI,
          AGED 54 YEARS
          W/O.JAYAN.T.S., PRIYA HOUSE, BALADUKKAM, CHERKALA,
          CHENGALA (PO), KASARAGOD-671 541.

    2     PRADEEP.T.J.,
          AGED 30 YEARS
          S/O.JAYAN.T.S., PRIYA HOUSE, BALADUKKAM, CHERKALA,
          CHENGALA (PO), KASARAGOD-671 541.

          BY ADV K.NIRMALAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA (FORMERLY VIJAYA BANK),
          CHERKALA BRANCH, CHERKALA, CHENGALA (PO),
          KASARAGOD-671 541.

    2     BANK OF BARODA (FORMERLY VIJAYA BANK),
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHERKALA BRANCH,
          CHERKALA, CHENGALA (P.O), KASARAGOD-671 541.

          BY ADVS.
          LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
          LATHA ANAND




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.24243/2021                      -2-

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging proceedings initiated

under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act) for recovery

of the amount due upon a home loan originally availed by the late husband together

with the 1st petitioner. This court while admitting the writ petition had directed the

petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 07-05-2022. It is

submitted that the said amount has been paid and on the payment of the said

amount almost the entirety of the over due amount in respect of housing loan has

been cleared and only a nominal amount is due in respect of the arrears of

installments due on the housing loan.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would submit

that the 2nd petitioner has availed a separate car loan from the respondent bank

which is also in default and therefore the housing loan account cannot the

regularised. However he does not dispute that the present recovery proceedings are

in respect of a housing loan. It is also confirmed that a sum of Rs.5,000/- alone is

the overdue amount in respect of the housing loan, after giving credit to the amount

of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this court.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances this writ petition will stand

disposed of in the following manner:

(i) The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- which is stated to be over

due together with any accrued interest and charges within a period of 2 weeks from

today.

(ii) The petitioners shall continue to pay/service the housing loan by

paying the regular installemnts.

(iii) In case of default the bank may continue the recovery proceedings

against the petitioners.

I make it clear that this judgment will apply only to the housing loan and will

have no application in respect of any car loan availed by the 2 nd petitioner.

The writ petition will stand disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24243/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL I, ERNAKULAM IN SA NO.298/2018 DATED 24.07.2018.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 28.10.2021 ISSUED FROM KASARGODE MUNICIPALITY.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 15.07.2021 AFFIXED BY RESPONDENT BANK.