Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47314
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
SHANKARANKUTTY PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
HDFC LIMITED – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 27534/2016
Non-compliance with court directives diminishes entitlement to further financial indulgence under SARFAESI.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Possession of Secured Assets - Act Section List - The court interpreted Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in relation to the non-compliance of payment directives by the petitioner, affirming the bank's right to take possession of secured assets following the petitioner's failure to adhere to the earlier court directives.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner approached the court after previously issued directions to remit debts were not complied with, leading to potential possession of secured assets by a bank under SARFAESI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that since the petitioner did not comply with previous orders, he was not entitled to any further indulgence for repayment. However, an opportunity to settle the entire liability was granted.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to further indulgence for repayment given previous non-compliance with court orders regarding debt settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the failure to adhere to prior court orders diminishes the petitioner's claims for further relief or indulgence regarding financial obligations.
Final Decision: The court allows one month for the petitioner to settle the debt before the bank may take possession.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court for the 2nd time.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.C.No.39835/2015, when proceedings were taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. This Court disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to remit the entire amount in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 05/01/2016 and also to remit the regular instalments, as per the original loan schedule. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had not complied with the directions issued by this Court. He now faces a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 of the Act taking possession of the secured asset.
2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not comply with the earlier directions issued by this Court in W.P.C.No.39835/2015, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled for any further indulgence in the form of instalment facility to repay the amount.
W.P.C.No.27534/2016
3. Be that as it may, since the petitioner had offered to settle the entire liability, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to vacate the premises and accordingly the following directions are issued:
i) The Advocate Commissioner shall defer taking possession of the premises for a period of one month from today.
ii) In the meantime, it shall be open for the petitioner to settle the entire liability with the respondent Bank.
iii) If there is failure on the part of the petitioner to settle the liability of the Bank within the aforesaid one month, it shall be open for the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the premises, without any further notice to the petitioner and the Bank shall proceed further, in accordance with law.
(
