AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Nagaresh, J
The petitioner, who has availed financial assistance from the 1st respondent-GIC Housing Finance Limited on 07.12.2004 for ₹73 lakhs, seeks to direct the respondents to provide a One Time Settlement facility to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to clear off the entire dues to the Bank.
The petitioner states that in the year 2017 the 1st respondent initiated Section 13(2) proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.23896/2017 and this Court as per judgment dated 07.08.2017 directed the petitioner to remit the overdue amount in instalments. The petitioner could not remit the amount as directed by this Court.
The respondents thereupon resumed SARFAESI proceedings and symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken by the respondents. The petitioner, however, continued to reside in the residential building. The petitioner approached the respondents and requested for time for clearing the loan amount. The petitioner intended to clear the loan amount selling one of his properties located in Changanassery.
On 18.04.2022, when the respondents required the petitioner to vacate the premises, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.14311/2022. The said writ petition is still pending. In the meanwhile, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam in MC No.824/2022 under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 has issued Ext.P2 notice proposing to take over physical possession of the residential building. The petitioner states that he is ready to clear the entire loan amount in 20 equal monthly instalments. He is also ready to clear the loan by way of One Time Settlement.
The respondents entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner was consistently making default in remitting the loan amount in spite of repeated requests. The petitioner did not clear the loan. Whenever the respondents initiated proceedings to recover loan dues, the petitioner filed writ petitions. This Court in W.P.(C) No.23896/2017 granted the petitioner opportunity to clear the dues in instalments. The petitioner did not clear the dues. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
The loan transaction is not disputed by the petitioner and so is his liability. The respondents invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in the year 2017. The petitioner challenged the same filing W.P.(C) No.23896/2017. This Court by judgment dated 07.08.2017 permitted the petitioner to remit the overdue amount in instalments. The petitioner failed to remit instalments.
In the year 2019, the respondents issued possession notice. Due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the recovery proceedings did not go ahead.
On 18.04.2022, the respondents required the petitioner to vacate the residential premises of which symbolic possession was taken over by the Bank. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.14311/2022. This Court did not grant any interim or final order to the petitioner.
Now, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the ACJM Court, Ernakulam has issued Ext.P2 notice. The petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to permit him to clear the dues by way of One Time Settlement. The petitioner also challenges Ext.P2 possession notice.
If the petitioner wants to challenge the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. A writ petition is not maintainable against Ext.P2 notice. As far as the prayer of the petitioner to provide One Time Settlement facility or instalment facility, I find that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.23896/2017 in which this Court granted permission to the petitioner to clear the overdue in instalments. The petitioner did not adhere to the directions contained therein.
In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent-Bank with any proposal for One Time Settlement / instalments.