Kerala High Court
Francis vs The Authorized Officer on 28 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 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18757 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
FRANCIS
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. DAVID, ENNAMMEL HOUSE,
MULAKUPOTTA, UDAYANKULANGARA, AMARAVILA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 122.
BY ADVS.
BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
BASIL MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
REPCO HOME FINANCE, ALEXANDER SQUARE,
THIRD FLOOR, OLD NO. 34/35, NEW NO. 2,
SARDAR PATEL ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI,
PIN - 600 032.
2 REPCO HOME FINANCE
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
T.C. NO. 20/2381, NIHAL COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, OPP. SBI KARAMANA BRANCH,
NH MAIN ROAD, KARAMANA PO, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695 002.
BY ADV
PAULOCHAN ANTONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18757 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th 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 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 and ₹4,81,833/-
to the petitioner as two Housing Loans in the year 2018.
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. The repayment of loans fell into
arrears later due to financial crisis. 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 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 Exts.P3 and P4
notices.
4. The petitioner states that he 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, he 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 2018.
The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
6. The respondents repeatedly reminded the
petitioner and required him 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 Exts.P3 and P4
were 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 is ₹16,40,883/- and the
overdue amount as on 24.05.2024 is ₹3,13,000/-.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned 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 of the
loan accounts 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 his liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of
₹50,000/- within a period of one month and
the balance overdue amount in subsequent
consecutive 12 equal monthly instalments
thereafter, along with accruing interest and
other administrative charges, if any.
(i) If the petitioner commits single 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.
(ii) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iii) If the petitioner pays the instalments
as directed above, any coercive
proceedings against the petitioner shall
stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18757/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER'S LOAN ACCOUNT HAVING
ACCOUNT NO. 1551860001177.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER'S LOAN ACCOUNT HAVING
ACCOUNT NO. 1551860001304.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
13/6/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 15/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
