N. Stella vs Authorized Officer, Repco Home Finance ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 13041 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 13041 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

N. Stella vs Authorized Officer, Repco Home Finance ... on 23 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 17162 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         N. STELLA,
         AGED 57 YEARS, W/O MOHANAN,
         PLAVARATHALA PUTHEN VEEDU, KANNARAVILA,
         NELLIMOODU.P.O., EYYATTINKARA,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695524.

         BY ADVS.
         R.T.PRADEEP
         P.BIJIMON
         M.BINDUDAS
         ABIN P. SHAJU
         SURAJ S. KUMAR
         NIRANJAN T. PRADEEP


RESPONDENTS:

    1    AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         REPCO HOME FINANCE LIMITED,
         REGISTERED OFFICE, REPCO TOWER,
         NO.33, NORTH USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR,
         CHENNAI, PIN - 600017.

    2    MANAGER,
         REPCO HOME FINANCE LIMITED,
         OPP.STATE BANK OF INDIA,KARAMANA,
         KARAMANA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         PIN - 695002.

         BY ADV.SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.17162 of 2024
                               :2:




                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the REPCO Home 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 ₹10 lakhs in the year 2014

and ₹3 lakhs in the year 2016 as Housing Loan and ₹6 lakhs

as Home Renovation Loan in the year 2017 to the petitioner.

The petitioner states that though the petitioner made

remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of

the financial advances, she could not pay the repayment

instalments promptly later due to treatment of the parents of

her husband. 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.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 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 years 2014,

2016 and 2017. 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.P1 notice was

issued in these circumstances. The loan accounts were

declared as NPA in the year 2022. 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 23.05.2024 is

₹20,08,119/- and the overdue amount is ₹7,44,630/-.

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 an amount of

₹1 lakh within a period of one month from

today.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

overdue amount in subsequent consecutive

ten equal monthly instalments thereafter,

along with accruing interest and other

administrative charges, if any.

(iii) 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.