Pradeepkumar P. and Omana Poradeepkumar v. Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941** # **WP(C).No. 9169 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 PRADEEPKUMAR P., AGED 40 YEARS RESIDING AT PARATHOTTIKKALAYIL, AYAMKUDI, AYAMKUDI P.O., NEAR SREE KRISHNA TEMPLE, PUTHUSSERIKARA, KOTTAYAM-686613.** **2 OMANA PORADEEPKUMAR, RESIDING AT PARATHOTTIKKALAYIL, AYAMKUDI, AYAMKUDI P.O., NEAR SREE KRISHNA TEMPLE, PUTHUSSERIKARA, KOTTAYAM-686613.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.D.SREEKANTH SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **M/S. MUTHOOT HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY LTD., T/C/NO.14/2074/7, MUTHOOT CENTER, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, DOOR NO.IX/694/B, PALM PLAZA, YMCA LANE, KOTTAYAM-686001, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER/AUTHORISED OFFICER.** **BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 9169/19 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners assail certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank 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 petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 3. When I deal with this writ petition, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010)** WPC 9169/19 3 **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 petitioners on its merits. 4. However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable them to pay off the total outstanding amounts in installments. 5. I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitioners can be allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Banks are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the WPC 9169/19 4 Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay off the total dues quickly, it would be to their interest also. 6. In view of the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Bank 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 petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them an opportunity to pay off the entire amounts demanded by the Bank. 7. The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be **Rs.3,96,709/-** as on 27.03.2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than ten instalments commencing from 25.04.2019. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners WPC 9169/19 5 says that the petitioners are agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore, that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioners to pay off the amount in the manner as afore. 9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay off the aforementioned amount in **ten** equal monthly instalments commencing from **25.04.2019** , along with applicable charges and interest. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioners 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 petitioners will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioners WPC 9169/19 6 that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment, save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment and they will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, which are impugned in this writ petition, before any other alternative Forum or Court. **==> picture [358 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the possession of the secured asset has already been taken, the Bank be directed to return the same to the petitioner on payment of a few instalments. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submits that if the petitioner pays 5 instalments, the possession of the secured asset will be returned to him. This is recorded. WPC 9169/19 7 The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **SD/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 9169/19 8 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS MC.203/2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND MAHAZAR OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN MC. NO.203/2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM