Kameshwar Paswan And Another ... vs Piramal Capital Housing Finance
2023 Latest Caselaw 2287 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.2286 of 2023
Kameshwar Paswan and Another                            ....Petitioners

                                Versus

Piramal Capital Housing Finance
Limited and Others                                    ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioners.
            Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State.
                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to action

dated 03.07.2023, by which the house of the petitioners has

been sealed. The petitioners seek possession of their own

house.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they took

housing loan from the respondent no.1. They paid the

installments, but there were some defaults in it. The

respondent no.1 resorted to take action under the provisions

of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the Act"), and,

subsequently, according to the petitioners, on 03.07.2023, the

house of the petitioners had already been sealed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would simply

submit that the petitioners are genuine in their intentions to

repay the amount; they have no other place to stay; they want

restoration of the possession of their house; they are ready

and willing to repay the amount in installments.

5. The Act has been enacted to regulate

securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and

enforcement of security interest, etc. It is a self contained Act.

In fact, it has not been argued on behalf of the petitioners

that the petitioners are aggrieved by any action that has been

taken under the provisions of the Act. It is also not the case of

the petitioners that action, under the provisions of the Act,

that has been taken in the matter, are not as per the

provisions of the Act. What is being argued is that the

petitioners are ready and willing to repay the amount.

6. This Court cannot entertain this argument. If

the petitioners are ready and willing to repay the amount,

they are free to approach the respondent no.1. In view of it,

this Court does not see any reason to make any interference

in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

8. However, if the petitioners approach the

respondent no.1, expressing their intention to repay the loan

in installments, they are free to do so. This Court has no

doubt that if the petitioners express their intention, not by

mere words, but by depositing a substantial portion of the

amount due, the respondent no.1 may consider it within the

four corners of law.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.08.2023 Ravi Bisht