Madhanraj Eranjulottumall House v. Muthoot Housing Finance Company

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.15101 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **MADHANRAJ ERANJULOTTUMAL HOUSE.P.O., KONOT POST, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673571.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER NISHA AEKANATH** ## **RESPONDENT:** **MUTHOOT HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY, NO.5/3420, C NOBLE BUILDING, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE673004.** ## **SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.15101 of 2019 2** ## **JUDGMENT** Through this writ petition, the petitioner calls into question certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent-Finance Company under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity). 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-Finance Company. 3. As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner herein, I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration of the legality or otherwise of the orders impugned in this writ petition on account of the imperative statutory provisions and the binding judicial pronouncements, especially that of the ## **WP(C).No.15101 of 2019 3** Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon** [2010 (8) SCC 110] and in **Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C.** [2018 (1) KLT 784]. I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits. 4. However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable him to pay off the overdue amounts in installments. 5. I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Finance Company as to whether the request on the part of the petitioner can be allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Finance Company's are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending ## **WP(C).No.15101 of 2019 4** litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Finance Company is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioner pays off the dues quickly, it would be to their interest also. 6. In view of the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Finance Company would consume time to culminate in total recovery and taking into account the financial constraints and burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing him an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Finance Company. 7. The learned counsel for the Finance Company at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.2,15,809/-, as on 14/06/2019, in not more than 10 instalments commencing from 29/07/2019 and that the ## **WP(C).No.15101 of 2019 5** account can thus be regularised by the Finance Company. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is agreeable to the above offer made by the Finance Company and therefore that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioner to pay off the amount in the manner as afore. 9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.2,15,809/-, as on 14/06/2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in 10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 29/07/2019 **.** He shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, his loan account would stand regularised and he would then be at liberty to service the account as per the terms of the loan sanctioned. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the ## **WP(C).No.15101 of 2019 6** payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Finance Company will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioner by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date. I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that the petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioner that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment will be permitted, save in exceptional circumstances and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and he will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Finance Company under the SARFAESI Act and impugned in this writ petition before any other alternative Forum or Court. **WP(C).No.15101 of 2019 7** The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** MC/15.6.19 **WP(C).No.15101 of 2019 8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.12.2018 OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER STATING THAT SHE WOULD TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON 21.12.18. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.5.2019 OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER STATING THAT HE WOULD TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.5.2019 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,000/- EVIDENCING PAYMENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **MC** **(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE**