Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51081
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
ELIZABETH JAMES – Appellant
Versus
PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED – Respondent
OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) 29/2018
The decision emphasizes the importance of alternative remedies available under the Securitisation Act and the consideration of hardship in interim orders.
Headnote:
Loan - Housing Loan - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 17, 18 - The court found that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act and granted an extension for payment, considering her hardship.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner’s daughter defaulted on a housing loan, leading the financial institution to initiate proceedings under the applicable Act. The petitioner contested an interim order requiring payment of Rs.17,00,000/-, arguing that the overdue amount was only Rs.12,50,000/.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner had alternative remedies under the Act and recognized her claim of hardship while not delving into the merits of the case, ultimately extending the payment timeline.
Issues: Whether the interim order issued by the Tribunal regarding the payment was justified in light of the actual overdue amount and potential hardship faced by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that, given the availability of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, it would refrain from reviewing the merits while accommodating the petitioner's hardship claim.
Final Decision: The interim payment deadline was extended to allow the petitioner to pay Rs.8,50,000/- by a specified date.
J U D G M E N T
The daughter of the petitioner availed a housing loan from the first respondent financial institution. She did not pay the instalments of the loan as agreed. Consequently, proceedings have been initiated by the financial institution under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act). In furtherance to the said proceedings, the symbolic possession of the security, which is in the possession of the petitioner, has been taken. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings as she is residing in the house situated in the property. She, therefore, filed S.A.No.72/2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ernakulam and obtained Ext.P5 interim order. In terms of Ext.P5 interim order, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- on or before 05/03/2018. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order and hence this original petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the financial institution.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the term of the housing loan is yet to be over and as on today, the overdue in the loan account is only Rs.12,50,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is without reckoning the said fact situation that the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay Rs.17,00,000/- in terms of the impugned interim order. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that had the petitioner paid Rs.12,50,000/- to the Bank directly, the Bank would have regularized the loan account, so as to enable the petitioner to pay the balance amount in accordance with the terms and conditions originally agreed upon.
4. Be that as it may, in so far as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 18 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act against the impugned interim order, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. Nevertheless, having regard to the plea of hardship made by the petitioner, the Original Petition is disposed of enlarging the time limit fixed for payment in terms of the impugned order till 30/03/2018 on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.8,50,000/- on or before 17/03/2018.
