K.Madhu vs M/S Gic Housing Finance Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 16444 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 16444 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

K.Madhu vs M/S Gic Housing Finance Ltd on 11 June, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 20909 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         K.MADHU
         AGED 56 YEARS
         S/O GOPI, GIFT OF GOD, KUZHIVILAKATHU VEEDU,
         NEAR ST. ANTONY CHURCH, NEYYAR DAM P.O,
         KALLIKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695572

         BY ADVS.
         JIBU P THOMAS
         DEVIKA VISWOM
         MEHARU RIZIN N.


RESPONDENT:

         M/S GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         P.T.C TOWER,1ST FLOOR, S.S KOVIL ROAD,
         THAMPANUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

         SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.06.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.20909 of 2024
                                2


                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of June, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the GIC Housing Finance Limited to the petitioner,

invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The respondent paid ₹23 lakhs to the petitioner as

Housing Loan in the year 2015. 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 due to financial

stringency. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It

happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

3. Though the petitioner requested the respondent to

permit the petitioner 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 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

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 respondent and denied all the statements made by the

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

loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2015. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The respondent repeatedly reminded the petitioner

and required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately

omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the respondent 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

respondent.

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 respondent

from the petitioner as on 11.06.2024 is ₹26,37,348/- and the

overdue amount as on 11.06.2024 is ₹8,74,267/-.

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

Standing Counsel representing the respondent.

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 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 petitioner to clear off the liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit ₹1 lakh on or

before 29.06.2024 and the balance overdue

amount in 10 consecutive and equal monthly

instalments thereafter along with accruing

interest and other Bank charges, if any

thereafter.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondent 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 spk

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.6268/2023 DATED 30.03.2023 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 12.06.2024