High Court Kerala High Court

Stoy T.Muttath vs Authorised Officer on 13 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Stoy T.Muttath vs Authorised Officer on 13 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25091 of 2010(J)


1. STOY T.MUTTATH, MUTTATH HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AUTHORISED OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AIG HOME FINANCE INDIA LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT

                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJESH THOMAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :13/09/2010

 O R D E R
                 C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
                 ------------------------------
              WP(C) NO. 25091 OF 2010
                 ------------------------------
      Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010


                        JUDGMENT

Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings

initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed

in repayment of housing loan availed by the petitioner

from the respondents, steps were initiated against the

secured assets, the immovable property belonging to the

petitioner. A notice regarding the steps under Section 13

(4) was issued as per Ext.P1 to take over possession of the

property. According to the petitioner there was default in

payment of only few instalments and the repayment

period is upto the year 2015. He is expressing willingness

to clear the outstanding arrears and to continue payment

of regular instalments without any further default.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

2
WP(C) No. 25091/2010

submitted that the outstanding arrears itself is more than

Rs.90,000/- and that the total arrears nearly Rs.3 lakhs.

However, considering the fact that the petitioner has got

an effective remedy against the proceedings as provided

under Section 17 (1) of the Act, and also considering the

fact that the petitioner has not raised any effective

objections against the demand under Section 13 (2), I am

not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case.

3. When the matter came up for admission, this

Court had granted an interim order subject to condition

of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is

conceded by both sides that the condition imposed has

already been complied with. However, considering the

totality of circumstances attendant in this case, I am

inclined to permit the petitioner to regularize the loan

account by paying the overdue amounts within a short

period.

4. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of

directing the respondents to keep all further proceedings

pursuant to Ext.P1 notice in abeyance, provided the

3
WP(C) No. 25091/2010

petitioner remits the entire amounts outstanding less the

amount paid by virtue of the interim order, in 2 (two)

equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before

30.10.2010 and 31.11.2010. The petitioner shall also

remit regular instalments due for these two months along

with such payments. If the outstanding arrears is cleared

payment as directed above, the respondent shall permit

the petitioner to continue payment of future instalments

as per the original schedule.

5. It is made clear that on the event of default in

payment of any of the instalment as stipulated as above,

the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps.

It is also made clear that the relief granted as above will

be subject to the condition that the petitioner is

precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against

the proceedings, either by approaching this Court or any

other Forum.

C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc