Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42038
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
ANITHA KURIAKOSE – Appellant
Versus
CHIEF MANAGER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 5763/2014
A previous judgment modifying loan repayment terms must be adhered to, but avenues for representation for alternative reliefs may still be permissible.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Property Possession - SARFAESI Act - Sections related to recovery
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the bank's actions under the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of a secured property, asserting that the bank disregarded a representation for relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the binding nature of a prior judgment which modified loan repayment terms. It allowed the petitioner to submit a representation under the one-time settlement scheme for consideration.
Issues: Whether the bank's action in taking possession was justified despite the petitioner's earlier representation seeking relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The prior judgment's modifications were binding, but the court provided an avenue for the petitioner to seek relief through a proper representation to the bank.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of, allowing representation to seek one-time settlement.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act for taking over physical possession of the property, over which security interest has been created in respect of a housing loan, without any regard to Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner for extending appropriate reliefs.
2. It is brought on record that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C). No.28290/2013. After considering the amounts to be satisfied under two different loans, the due amount was directed to be satisfied by way of 10 equal monthly instalments. The Bank took up the matter in appeal by filing W.A. No.1834/2013, wherein Ext.P2 judgment came to be passed. As per Ext.P2 judgment, the relief granted by the learned single Judge was modified and the number of instalments was reduced to 'four'; the first of which was to be effected on or before 15.01.2014 in respect of both the loans. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner could not satisfy the said requirement and it is in the said circumstance, the prayer is to cause Ext.P4 representation to be considered in a lenient manner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the matter has become final, by virtue of Ext.P2 verdict passed by the Division Bench. If the petitioner wants to clear the liability by availing the benefit of 'one time settlement scheme', and if any such representation is filed before the Bank, the same will be considered with reference to the merit involved and appropriate orders will be passed in this regard.
4. In view of the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file a proper representation before the Bank to have the benefit of the said Scheme, if any; upon which the same shall be considered along with Ext.P4 and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon, as expeditiously as possible.
The writ petition is disposed of.
