Ramla Beevi F vs Authorized Officer And Ors

Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she as well as her son had availed a NRI housing loan amounting to Rs.20 lakhs. However, as the

son of the petitioner had lost employment, the petitioner could not repay the loan in instalments. It is also argued that as the communications were in

English, the petitioner could not approach this Court immediately. It is further argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire recalled

loan in instalments and therefore, the respondents be directed to keep the action under the SARFAESI Act in abeyance.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition by contending that in 2012, housing loan of Rs.20 lakhs was

availed by the petitioner and her son. But since last 30 months, not a single pie is refunded by them. He submits that the term of the loan is upto

February 2022 and the recalled amount of loan is Rs.14,10,777/-. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the proceedings

under the SARFAESI Act were commenced prior to two years and if the petitioner claims indulgence of this Court, then she should deposit an amount

of Rs.3 lakhs by tomorrow, Rs.5 lakhs by 15.03.2021, and the remaining amount of recalled loan along with other charges should be repaid in four

equal monthly instalments.

I have considered the submissions so advanced. The writ petition is filed with a prayer to regularise the loan account and simultaneously, the

petitioner is also seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the communication at Ext.P1. By the communication at Ext.P1

issued on 23.01.2021, the Advocate Commissioner had informed the petitioner that he is taking possession of the secured asset on 20.02.2021. At the

fag end of this notice of one month, the petitioner has approached this Court claiming equitable relief.

This Court is aware of the fact that the challenge to the communication at Ext.P1, which is a step taken by the secured creditor under the

SARFAESI Act, cannot be maintained before this Court in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Authorized Officer,

State Bank of Tranvancore and another vs. Mathew K.C reported in 2018 (1) KLT 784. However, keeping in mind the prayer for seeking instalments

made by the petitioner, equity can be balanced by disposing the writ petition with the following directions:

The petitioner to clear the entire recalled amount and other charges in the following manner:

The petitioner should pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the respondents on 22.02.2021 and an amount of Rs.5 lakhs by 15.03.2021. The rest of the

recalled amount of loan and other charges be paid by the petitioner to the respondents in four equated monthly instalments commencing from

15.04.2021. If the petitioner complies with these directions, the respondents shall keep the action under the SARFAESI Act initiated against the

petitioner in abeyance. A single default by the petitioner shall entail respondents to continue with the pending action under the SARFAESI Act. No

further extension of time shall be granted to the petitioner for compliance of these directions.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.