Loading...

C.K.Rajagopalan vs Housing Development Finance … on 30 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
C.K.Rajagopalan vs Housing Development Finance … on 30 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22917 of 2010(L)


1. C.K.RAJAGOPALAN, "KRISHNA KRIPA",
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.VALSALAN

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

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :30/07/2010

 O R D E R
                     P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                              ---------------------------
                        W.P.(C) No. 22917 OF 2010
                              --------------------------
                   Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010

                               J U D G M E N T

The case has got a long history. The petitioner availed a loan

from the first respondent creating security interest over the property in

question. But in view of the admitted default, steps under SARFAESI Act

were initiated against the petitioner, which was subjected to challenge by

approaching the DRT under Section 17. After considering the case

projected by the petitioner before the DRT, coercive steps were

intercepted on condition that the petitioner satisfied a portion of the

liability. The case of the respondent bank is that the condition was not

fully complied with and later, though the condition imposed by the DRT

was complied, SA No.382 of 2009 itself happened to be dismissed for

default. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed an application for

restoration, which was allowed; wherein some fresh condition was

imposed by the DRT. Since the petitioner turned to be a defaulter in this

regard as well, the interim stay was vacated, which is the subjected to

challenge in this writ petition.

2. The facts and figures have been explained by the bank in a

statement filed, asserting that the course pursued by the bank is in

conformity with the statute and the same does not call for any

interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

does not intend to press any of the contentions raised in the securitisation

WPC No.22917/2010
2

application pending before the DRT and that the prayer of the petitioner is

limited to enable the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability within a span of

‘four months’.

3. The learned counsel for the bank submits that the request of

the petitioner can be considered only subject to the condition that the

petitioner undertakes that SA is not pressed any further and will take

necessary steps to cause it to be withdrawn.

4. Since the SA is stated as not pressed, taking note of the

particular facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to wipe off

the entire liability of Rs.9,03,412/- under the loan transaction within ‘four

months’ as prayed for and undertaken by the petitioner. The recovery

proceedings being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance

for the time being, on condition that the petitioner proves his bonafides by

depositing a sum of Rs.One lakh within three weeks and withdraws the SA

pending before the DRT forthwith.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
(JUDGE)
vps

WPC No.22917/2010
3

WPC No.22917/2010
4

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information