Kerala High Court
Satheesh Kumar N vs Icici Bank Limited on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 19693 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SATHEESH KUMAR N,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. NANJUNDAN KAUNDAR, UDHUVAKKAD, PALLATHERI P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678007.
BY ADVS.
JACOB SEBASTIAN
K.V.WINSTON
ANU JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 ICICI BANK LIMITED,
RAPG, FIRST FLOOR, UDAYA TOWERS, WEST FORT ROAD,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER.
2 DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,
AMBIKA ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. PRADEESH CHACKO (SC)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.19693/2022 -2-
JUDGMENT
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 amounts due upon a housing loan availed by the petitioner.
2. During the course of hearing, petitioner has confined the relief to an
opportunity for repaying the overdue amount in instalments and to obtain
regularisation of the loan account.
3. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that the petitioner
committed default in repayment and the overdue amount is Rs.2,52,940/-.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
situation now prevailing, apart from the submissions made as recorded above and
considering the fact that this is a housing loan and also taking into account the fact
that the petitioner has undertaken to clear off the overdue amount along with
regular EMIs, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to
clear off the overdue amount in ten (10) equal instalments first of which shall be
paid on or before 15-07-2022 and thereafter, if the amount so directed is repaid
within the time as directed above, to have the loan account regularised.
5. The standing counsel for the respondent bank would submit that the
physical possession of the petitioner's property has already been taken. The learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks time to obtain instructions from his client as to
whether physical possession actually be taken. I am of the opinion that this need
not detain this court and it is only be necessary to direct that if physical possession
is taken by the respondent, on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- either in installment as
above or upfront the physical possession shall be returned to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept
repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.2,52,940/- along with bank charges
from the petitioner and regularise the loan account of the petitioner on the
following conditions:
(i) The overdue amount of Rs.2,52,940/- together with any accrued
interest and charges shall be repaid in ten equated monthly
instalments.
(ii) The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15-07-2022 and the
subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 15 th of every
succeeding month.
(iii) If physical possession of the secured asset is taken by the respondent,
on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- either in installment as above or upfront
the physical possession of the secured asset shall be returned to the
petitioner.
(iii) Petitioner shall continue to pay the regular EMI's along with the
instalments directed above.
(iv) In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank
shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.
(v) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts, further
coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19693/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.5.2022 ISSUED UNDER
THE SARFAEST ACT.
