Rumesh R vs Manappuram Home Finance Pvt. Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 11687 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 37682 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          RUMESH R
          AGED 33 YEARS, S/O RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
          CHAVAROTTU HOUSE, MUNDROTHURUTHE P.O.,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691502.

          BY ADV A.K.HARIDAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1     MANAPPURAM HOME FINANCE PVT. LTD
          KOTTAYAM BARANCH, LOGOS CENTRE,
          LOGOS JUNCTION PIN - 686001
          REP.BY IT'S AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

    2     SOBHANA
          AGED 55 YEARS, W/O RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
          CHAVAROTTU HOUSE, MUNDROTHURUTHE P.O.,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691502.

    3     RAJESH R
          AGED 30 YEARS, S/O RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
          CHAVAROTTU HOUSE, MUNDROTHURUTHE P.O.,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691502.

          BY ADVS.
          C.HARIKUMAR
          SANDRA SUNNY
          ARUN KUMAR M.A
          FARAH JYOTHI PRADEEP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.37682 of 2023

                                   :2:




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of November, 2023

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the

coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by

the 1st respondent-Manapuram Home Finance Private Limited to

the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, invoking the provisions of

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The 1st respondent paid ₹7,15,145/- to the petitioner as

Home Loan in the year 2020. The petitioner states that though

the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial

repayment period of the financial advance, he could not pay the

repayment instalments promptly later. The repayment of loan fell

into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the

petitioner.

W.P.(C) No.37682 of 2023

3. Though the petitioner requested the respondents to

permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy

monthly instalments, the respondents were not yielding. They,

instead, started coercive proceedings, invoking the provisions of

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security

Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and issued Ext.P2 notice.

4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to clear

the overdue amounts towards the loan, if sufficient time is given

to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. If the 1 st

respondent is permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings

and auction the secured assets provided by the petitioner, he will

be put to untold hardship and loss.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the

respondents and denied all the statements made by the

petitioner. On behalf of the 1st respondent, it is submitted that the

loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2020. The petitioner W.P.(C) No.37682 of 2023

committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The respondents repeatedly reminded the petitioner

and required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately

omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the respondents had no

other go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the

provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The

impugned Ext.P2 was issued in these circumstances. The

petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the

coercive proceedings initiated by the respondents.

7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the

petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial payment

soon and remit the balance outstanding amount immediately

thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner

to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the

outstanding amount due to the respondents from the petitioner as

on 30.11.2023 is ₹8,37,991/-.

W.P.(C) No.37682 of 2023

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

has been making the repayment and maintaining the loan

account initially. The default in repayment occurred lately due to

reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has

provided substantial security which will safeguard the interest of

the respondents.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving a short and

reasonable time to the petitioner to clear off the liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding

amount of ₹8,37,991/- in ten equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other administrative W.P.(C) No.37682 of 2023

charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid

on or before 16.12.2023.

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making

payments as directed above, the respondents

will be at liberty to continue with coercive

proceedings against the petitioner in accordance

with law.

(iii) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C) No.37682 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37682/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 07.10.2020 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 09.10.2023