Sujith K vs The Branch Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 14036 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sujith K vs The Branch Manager 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. 6398 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SUJITH K
         AGED 44 YEARS
         S/O.BALAN, NIL THIMIRI VILLAGE,
         TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR,, PIN - 670 581.

         BY ADV SHIBU JOSEPH

RESPONDENTS:

   1     THE BRANCH MANAGER
         ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD,
         SHOP NO. 34/514, 1ST FLOOR, CHOLLAMPATTU
         BUILDING, EDAPPALLY TOLL JUNCTION, KOCHI,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 024.
   2     AUTHORISED OFFICER
         ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD,
         SHOP NO. 34/514, 1ST FLOOR, CHOLLAMPATTU
         BUILDING, EDAPPALLY TOLL JUNCTION, KOCHI,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 024.

    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. 6398 of 2024
                               :2:



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024

The petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash

Exhibits P1 and P2 notices issued by the ICICI Home

Finance Company Limited, invoking the provisions of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and to direct the

respondents to regularize the loan account and to permit the

petitioner to remit the outstanding amount required for such

regularisation, in 14 equal monthly installments.

2. When this writ petition came up for admission, this

Court issued urgent notice on admission to the respondents

and an interim order was granted staying further proceedings

pursuant to Ext.P2 on condition that the petitioner remits an

amount of ₹ 3 lakhs within one month.

3. After getting the interim order, the petitioner has

not taken out process for sending notice to the respondents.

The petitioner has failed to take out process inspite of lapse

of more than 3 months.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed

for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AJ

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6398/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12-5-2023.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31-1-

                2024   ISSUED    BY   THE   ADVOCATE
                COMMISSIONER.