Kerala High Court
Ramesh R vs M/S Aadhar Housing Finance Limited on 12 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15121 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RAMESH R.,
AGED 45 YEARS,
KOKRAD, KALLATHANIPARAMBU,
VAKKELPPADI,
KAVASSERI NEAR YETHEEMKHANA NEAR,
YATHEEMKHANA PALAKKAD,
KERALA, PIN - 678543
2 BEENA S.,
AGED 38 YEARS,
(1ST CO BORROWER) KOKRAD,
KALLATHANIPARAMBU, VAKKELPPADI,
PALAKKAD, NEAR YETHEEMKHANA PALAKKAD DIST.,
PIN - 678543
BY ADV. RAJAN KUDUMBATHIL
RESPONDENT:
M/S AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,
24/950-3/4,S.P.A.R.K,FIRST FLOOR,
KUNNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD,
EP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER
RAMJITH GOVINDAN NAIR,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR,
PIN - 678013
BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.15121/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the Aadhar Housing Finance
Ltd. to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The respondent paid ₹6 lakhs to the petitioners
as Home Loan in the year 2022. The petitioners state that
though the petitioners made remittances promptly during
the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they
could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due
to financial crisis. The repayment of loan fell into arrears
later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the
petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the respondent
to permit the petitioners to repay the overdue amounts in
easy monthly instalments, the respondent was not yielding.
The authorities, 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 petitioners state that they are 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 respondent is permitted to continue with
the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets
provided by the petitioners, they will be put to untold
hardship and loss.
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf
of the respondent and denied all the statements made by
the petitioners. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted
that the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2022.
The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The respondent repeatedly reminded the
petitioners and required them to clear the dues. The
petitioners deliberately omitted to do so. In the
circumstances, the respondent had no other go, than to
proceed against the petitioners invoking the provisions of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The
impugned Ext.P2 notice was issued in these circumstances.
The petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons to
thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the respondent.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are ready and willing to make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance overdue amount
immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be
granted to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing
Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the
respondent from the petitioners as on 12.04.2024 is
₹7,15,933/- and the overdue amount as on 12.04.2024 is
₹1,77,280/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and
the Standing Counsel representing the respondent.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have been making the repayment and
maintaining the loan account initially. The default in
repayment of the account occurred lately due to reasons
beyond the control of the petitioners. The petitioners have
provided substantial security which will safeguard the
interest of the respondent.
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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit the
overdue amount of ₹1,77,280/- in 10
consecutive and equal monthly
installments along with accruing interest
and other administrative charges, if any.
First of such installments shall be paid on
or before 13.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue
with coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioners pay the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioners will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15121/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN M.C
63/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, PALAKKAD. DATED OCTOBER 2023.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
01/04/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONERS.
