Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions to re...

Sarath Sasidharan v LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.18018 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2019-07-05
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with directions allowing the petitioner to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs 6,63,229 (as of 03/07/2019) along with charges and interest in 10 equal monthly installments commencing from 05/08/2019. The order makes the directions peremptory and cautions that default will vacate the benefit and permit the Finance Company to continue recovery from the current stage. The decision reflects a pragmatic settlement within statutory limits, balancing debt recovery with the borrower’s financial constraints.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions to repay the outstanding dues in installments; peremptory terms and consequences for default.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sarath Sasidharan

Respondents

  • LIC Housing Finance Ltd.
  • The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd.
  • BALU DINESH

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • George Mathew
  • • George K.V.
  • • Mathew K.T.
  • • Praveen S.
  • • Sunil Kumar A.G.
  • • Dipu James
  • • M.D. Sasikuman
  • • (M.D. Sasikumar)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • R.S. Kalkura

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Sarath Sasidharan, challenged proceedings initiated by LIC Housing Finance Ltd under the SARFAESI Act 2002. The Kerala High Court framed the issue within its jurisdiction, noting that it cannot adjudicate the legality of the orders impugned on merits due to mandatory statutory provisions and binding precedents. It cited Union Bank of India v Satyawati Tondon and Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v Mathew KC to underline that writ petitions under SARFAESI are limited to legal contentions, not merits review. Despite this, the court examined the request for leniency to enable installment payments, balancing the lender’s recovery interests with the borrower’s financial constraints. The Finance Company indicated a willingness to cooperate, provided the debtor clears the total due promptly. The court ultimately disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to pay Rs 6,63,229 as of 03/07/2019 in 10 equal installments starting 05/08/2019, along with charges and interest. It emphasized that failure to comply would vacate the benefit and permit continued recovery from the current stage. The order aims for a pragmatic settlement within statutory limits to avoid prolonged litigation while preserving the lender’s rights.

Provisions of Law Cited

SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Sections 13(2), 13(4))

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner's counsel urged leniency to allow installment payments to clear the total outstanding dues rather than pursue prolonged litigation. While acknowledging the court’s jurisdictional limits under SARFAESI, they sought a practical remedy to avert foreclosure and financial distress. The petitioner proposed to settle the outstanding amount, presently stated as Rs 6,63,229 as on 03/07/2019, in installments, arguing that quick settlement serves both debt recovery interests and the petitioner’s financial constraints. The counsel stressed that the lender is interested in recovery and not in endless litigation, and that a structured repayment plan would facilitate timely clearance while respecting statutory boundaries.

Contentions of Respondents

The Finance Company’s counsel stated that recovery is the core objective and indicated willingness to permit settlement if the debtor clears the entire due promptly. They specified the total outstanding as Rs 6,63,229 as of 03/07/2019, plus charges and interest, to be paid in not more than 10 installments starting from 05/08/2019. They argued that such an arrangement would avoid protracted litigation and that any default would revoke the relief and allow the loan recovery process to continue from the present stage. The respondent emphasized that the court should uphold the lender’s right to prompt recovery within the SARFAESI framework.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon2010 (8) SCC 110PositiveCited as binding precedent establishing the principle that a writ court under SARFAESI cannot entertain a merits review of the orders and should proceed within statutory confines.
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew KC2018 (1) KLT 784PositiveCited as binding authority reinforcing the jurisdictional limits and the approach to SARFAESI matters, limiting merits-based examination.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sarath Sasidharan v LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.18018 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **SARATH SASIDHARAN AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.P.K.SASIDHARAN, 599 ANANDA SADANAM, KSRTC ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645, NOW AT FLAT NO.703, AL NAHDA, NEAR CARREFOUR, LILLY TOWER, SHARJAH, DUBAI THROUGH HIS DULY AUTHORISED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MRS. SARITHA SASIDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.P.K.SASIDHARAN, FLAT NO.6A, AMRUDHI SYAM MANOR, THANBURANMUKKU, VANCHIYOOR P.O., VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK AND DISTRICT-695035.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SHRI.GEORGE K.V. SHRI.MATHEW K.T. SHRI.PRAVEEN S. SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., 131 MAKER TOWER 'F' PREMISES, 13TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI-400005, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMEN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **2 LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR, LEELA TOWER, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 3 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., 2ND FLOOR, LEELA TOWER, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** **WP(C).No.18018 of 2019 2** **4 BALU DINESH, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, C/O.C.R.SUDHEESH, ADVOCATE, LEKSHMI BUILDINGS, MALLOOR ROAD, VANCHIYOOR P.O., VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK AND DISTRICT-695035.** **SC- SRI. R.S. KALKURA.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.18018 of 2019 3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner assails 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. 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 (8) SCC 110] and in **Authorised Officer, State** **WP(C).No.18018 of 2019 4** **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 total outstanding 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 Companies are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has **WP(C).No.18018 of 2019 5** fairly submitted that the Finance Company is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioner pays off the total 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 entire 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 total outstanding, which is stated to be **Rs.6,63,229/-,** as on **03/07/2019** , along with other charges and interest, in not more than **10** instalments commencing from **05/08/2019.** **WP(C).No.18018 of 2019 6** 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 amount of **Rs.6,63,229/-,** as on **03/07/2019** , in **10** equal monthly instalments commencing from **05/08/2019** , 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 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 **WP(C).No.18018 of 2019 7** 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. **==> picture [327 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** accordingly. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** MC/5.7.19 **WP(C).No.18018 of 2019 8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20.12.2017 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT U/S.13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT 2002. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FROM 01/2014 TO 01/2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 18.02.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PAYMENT DETAILS DATED 17.04.2019 ISSUED FROM ICICI BANK.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.02.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT U/S.13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT 2002.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF WARRANT DATED 28.05.2019 IN M.C.NO.355 OF 2019 OF THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17.06.2019 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **MC** **(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE**