Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan K vs M/S Sundaram Home Finance Limited on 21 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17681 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 MURALEEDHARAN K
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUPANIKKAN,
VALUTHARA PADEETTETHIL ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM PO.,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 69 011.
2 LILLY A.
AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. MURALEEDHRAN,
VALUTHARA PADEETTETHIL ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM PO.,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690 110.
BY ADVS.
ALEX K.JOHN
SRAYAS JOSEPH
REMYA MURALI
REENA JACOB
NINAN THOMAS
RESPONDENT:
M/S SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED
SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI -600014, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
OFFICER, ABU ROASHAN ANDREWS, S/O. JOSHY
CYRIAC, AREA OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ELIZABETH
ALEXANDER MEMMORAIAL BUILIDNG, MARINE DRIVE,
OPP. RAINBOW BRIDGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.17681 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the M/s Sundaram Home Finance
Limited 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 ₹20 lakhs to the petitioners
as Housing Loan in the year 2019. 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. The
repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to financial crisis.
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 authorities 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 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 2019. 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. The petitioners loan
account was declared as NPA in the year 2022. 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.P1 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 is ₹16,16,699/- and the overdue amount
as on 17.05.2024 is ₹2,46,448/-.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned 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 repaymentof 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 an amount of
₹75,000/- within a period of one month from
today and the balance overdue amount in
subsequent consecutive 10 equal monthly
instalments thereafter, along with accruing
interest and other administrative charges, if
any.
(ii) If the petitioners commit single 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 instalments as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17681/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER 06.04.2024.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PRONOUNCED
BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN CMP
NO.1212/2024 IN M.C.NO.224/2024 DATED
23.03.2024.
