Kerala High Court
Daisy.B vs The Authorized Officer on 28 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18901 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DAISY.B
AGED 53 YEARS, W/O JOSEPH RAJ,
RESIDING AT JOSEPH COTTAGE, TOWN WARD,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691305.
BY ADVS.
PRATHEESH.P
ANJANA KANNATH
MARIYA JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD.,
LIC BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001.
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., 17/218,
IIND FLOOR, SARADA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
AVJ JUNCTION., MULLAKKAL,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688011.
BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP
SADCHITH.P.KURUP
C.P.ANIL RAJ
SIVA SURESH
B.SREEDEVI
ATHIRA VIJAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.18901 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the LIC 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 respondents paid two loans of ₹18.49 lakhs
and ₹6.80 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loans in the year
2019. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made
remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the
financial advance, she could not pay the instalments promptly
later. The repayment of loans 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 instalments, 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.P4 notice invoking Section 13(4) of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 .
4. The petitioner states that she is still in a position to
clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, if sufficient time
is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. 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 loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2019. The
petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
6. The respondents repeatedly reminded the petitioner
and required her 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.P4 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 remit the balance overdue
amount in instalments, 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 is ₹24,53,700/- and the overdue amount as
on 28.06.2024 is ₹3,06,449/-.
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 accounts 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 overdue
amount of ₹3,06,449/- in 12 equal and
consecutive monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other administrative
charges, if any. The first instalment shall be
paid on or before 29.07.2024.
(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) 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
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18901/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TREATMENT RECORDS DATED 26.02.2024
OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 THE OUTPATIENT RECORD ISSUED FROM
MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 15.3.2024
Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE VRS APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.03.2024
Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED U/S 13(4) FOR OF SARFAESI ACT
DATED 04.05.2024
