Rext Roy vs The Authorised Officer on 15 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 37090 of 2007(M)


1. REXT ROY,W/O.ROY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. H.D.F.C. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, HDFC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/01/2008

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     =========================
                       W.P.(C)NO.37090 OF 2007
                     =========================
                  Dated this the 15th day of January 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner had availed of financial assistance from the

respondents and in view of the default committed by him, action was

taken by them under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is stated that

symbolic possession has already taken on 18.5.2007 and an

application under Section-14 is awaiting orders. At this stage, this writ

petition has been filed by the petitioner requesting that the

respondents should defer the sale at least for three months to enable

the petitioner to locate a buyer and conclude the sale. The respondent

in the statement filed does not oppose this request as such, but

however, contends that if the petitioner succeeds in identifying a buyer

before the respondent finalises the sale, the respondent is certainly

open to consider that as well. It is also argued that the amount is long

overdue and therefore it cannot wait endlessly, particularly, in view of

the default that has already been committed by the petitioner in the

part.

2. Having regard to the facts as above, it will not be fair to

W.P.(C)37090/2007 2

require the respondent to wait for a long time to enable the petitioner

to conclude a private sale as requested by him. On the other hand, in

view of the stand that is taken by the Bank, it is always open to the

petitioner to proceed to negotiate a private sale. In view of the above,

it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to identify a buyer

and conclude the sale in which case, the respondent will duly consider

the same. However any such private sale should be concluded as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from today

and if it does not materialise, the respondent will be free to proceed

with the steps that it has already initiated.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

                                           ANTONY DOMINIC,
                                                  JUDGE
css/

W.P.(C)37090/2007    3