Kerala High Court
Seethalakshmi vs Authorised Officer on 6 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 3043 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SEETHALAKSHMI,
AGED 33 YEARS,
D/O JEEVANANDOM, DOOR NO. 17/1710,
NEETHYADU PARAMBU,
PUTHIYARA, BEHIND MALABAR GOLD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004
BY ADVS.
BOBY THOMAS
WINSTON K.V
RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORISED OFFICER,
DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. (DHFL).
WARDEN HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, SIR P M ROAD,
FORT MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER,
PIRAMAL FINANCE,
601, 6TH FLOOR, AMITI BUILDING,
AGASTYA CORPORATE PARK, KAMANI JUNCTION,
OPP FIRE STATION, LBS MARG,
KURLA, MUMBAI, PIN - 400070
3 THE MANAGER,
PIRAMAL FINANCE,
NO.6/1002F, CITY MALL, KANNUR ROAD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
BY ADVS.
P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY P
SREEJITH K.(K/380/2005)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.3043/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the Dewan Housing Finance
Corporation Ltd. to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The respondents paid ₹20,26,064/- to the
petitioner as Home Loan in the year 2016. The petitioner
states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly
during the initial repayment period of the financial advance,
she could not pay the repayment installments promptly later
due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into
arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of
the petitioner.
3. Though the petitioner requested the respondents
to permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in
easy monthly installments, the respondents were 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.P1 notice.
4. The petitioner states that she 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 installments.
If the respondents are permitted to continue with the
coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets
provided by the petitioner, she 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 respondents, it is submitted
that the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2016.
The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The respondents repeatedly reminded the
petitioner and required her to clear the dues. The petitioner
deliberately omitted to do so. The petitioner's loan account
was declared as NPA in the year 2019. 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.P1 notice 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 overdue 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 17.01.2024 is
₹38,60,482/- and the overdue amount as on 17.01.2024 is
₹18,89,229/-.
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 of the
loan 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 overdue
amount of ₹18,89,229/- in 12 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 06.03.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with the coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if
any, against the petitioner shall stand
deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3043/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C
NO.22/2021 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED
05.01.2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN M.C
NO.22/2021 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED
26.03.2021
