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necessary steps to cause it to be withdrawn.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