judgement
Subject : Financial Law - Securitization and Enforcement of Security Interests
Description :
# Court Grants Petitioners Temporary Relief in Loan Repayment Dispute
The petitioners, who had taken out a housing loan from the respondent Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. in 2020, approached the court seeking relief from the coercive proceedings initiated by the respondent for the recovery of the financial advance. The petitioners claimed that they had made prompt repayments during the initial period, but later fell into arrears due to reasons beyond their control.
The petitioners argued that they were still in a position to clear the overdue amounts if given sufficient time to do so in easy monthly installments. They claimed that if the respondent was allowed to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets, they would suffer significant hardship and loss.
The respondent, on the other hand, denied the petitioners' claims and stated that the loan was given in 2020, and the petitioners had deliberately defaulted on the repayments despite repeated reminders. The respondent argued that it had no choice but to proceed with the coercive proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 .
The court acknowledged the petitioners' claim that the default in repayment occurred due to reasons beyond their control and that they had provided substantial security to safeguard the respondent's interests. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court was inclined to grant the petitioners a short and reasonable time to clear their liability.
The court directed the petitioners to remit an amount of ₹50,000 within three weeks and the balance overdue amount in subsequent consecutive 8 equal monthly installments, along with accruing interest and other administrative charges. The court also ordered the petitioners to pay the current EMIs along with the aforementioned payments.
The court stated that if the petitioners commit a single default in making the payments as directed, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with the law. However, if the petitioners pay the installments as directed, any coercive proceedings against them shall stand deferred.
#LoanRepayment #FinancialAssets #LegalDispute #KeralaHighCourt
Supreme Court Rules Criminal Courts Must Not Act As Recovery Agents For Disputed Dues
27 Jul 2026
Rajya Sabha Bill Seeks To Criminalize Vande Mataram Disruption Under The National Honour Act
27 Jul 2026
Will Competitive Exams Deplete Delhi District Courts of Judges During Crucial Trial Proceedings This Year?
27 Jul 2026
Bombay High Court Adjourns Defamation Case Involving Union Minister Nitin Gadkari And Online Media Platforms
28 Jul 2026
Rajasthan High Court Directs State to Form Separate Wings for Crime Investigation and Security
28 Jul 2026
Gujarat High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of CGST Section 16 2 c Denying Unpaid Input Tax
28 Jul 2026
Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues New Guidelines For Legal Aid Defense Counsel System
28 Jul 2026
Government Introduces Public Examinations Amendment Bill 2026 In Lok Sabha To Curb Exam Paper Leaks
28 Jul 2026
Should Delhi High Court Increase Pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Courts to ₹10 Crore Threshold?
28 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.