High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 07 MAD CK 0222

S. Kaliammal vs The Registrar (Housing)

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 July 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Nagamuthu, J
CASE NUMBER
W.P. (MD) No. 7655 of 2010 and M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 850 words

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner''s husband, the deceased S.V.Shanmuganathan was a member of the third respondent-Society, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. He had secured loan under the Low Income Group category, to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of renovating his house. He did not repay the said amount. Therefore, the third respondent filed A.R.C.No.393 / 2002-2003 before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar passed an award on 29.01.2004 for a sum of Rs. 62,714.55 with interest at 16.10%. Even after passing of the award, Mr.S.V.Shanmuganathan, did not repay the amount. Therefore, the third respondent filed Execution Proceedings in C.E.P.No.226 / 2004-2005 for the sale of the mortgaged property. Several notices were issued to Mr.S.V.Shanmuganathan. Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued fixing 12.06.2010 as the date for auction. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased Shanmuganathan, filed the present writ petition challenging the sale notice and seeking a further direction to the respondents to waive the entire loan amount in view of the Waiver Scheme floated by the first respondent by the Notification published in ?Dhina Thanthi? dated 22.06.2008.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the records carefully.

3.

The third respondent has filed a detailed counter wherein, he has stated that Mr.S.V.Shanmuganathan had applied for loan under the Low Income Group. As per the Waiver Scheme introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.113, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.05.2008, if the debtor belongs to Economically Weaker Section and if the amount does not exceed Rs. 25,000/- the entire amount will be waived. Suppose the loan amount is more than Rs. 25,000/- and less than Rs. 1,00,000/- and the debtor belongs to Low Income Group, in that event, if the outstanding principal amount and 50% of the interest amount is paid by the debtor, then, 50% of the interest amount including penal interest will stand waived. It is stated in the counter that since Mr.S.V.Shanmuganathan did not belong to Economically Weaker Section and since he falls within the Low Income Group, if only 50% of the interest and the outstanding principal amount is paid, then, the rest will be waived.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that it is not true that the deceased S.V.Shanmuganathan belong to Low Income Group. According to him, the deceased was a poor man belonging to Economically Weaker Section. Therefore, as per the above stated Government Order, since the principal amount was less than Rs. 25,000/-, the entire loan amount will stand waived. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned sale notice is void and the same deserves to be cancelled.

5.

The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the deceased Shanmuganathan did not belong to Economically Weaker Section at all. He would submit that the loan application itself was made only under the Low Income Group. For that purpose, the learned counsel would take me through the typed set of papers filed by the third respondent, wherein in Page-1, a copy of the loan application had been filed. In the said application, the deceased had applied for loan only under the Low Income Group. He has further stated that at the time of making loan application, he was working in a private mill and was earning a sum of Rs. 1597.66. Thus according to the respondents the deceased had fallen within the Low Income Group and not even Economically Weaker Section. The learned counsel would also draw my attention to the declaration made by Mr.S.V.Shanmuganathan while making loan application wherein also he has described himself as Low Income Group. In the order sanctioning the loan vide Ka.A.Vu.No.7/89-90 dated 15.12.1989 also, the lonee had been mentioned as LIG / SC. In the consolidated voucher (Vide Page 16 of the typed set of papers), wherein Mr.Shanmuganathan has signed, his income category has been mentioned as LIG / SC. Referring to all these documents and registers, the learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the deceased will not fall within the scope of Economically Weaker Section and therefore, the entire loan amount shall not stand waived. He would further submit that in the event the petitioner pays the entire principal amount with 50% interest, the rest of the interest and the penal interest will stand waived.

6.

In my considered opinion, going by the declaration made by the deceased Shanmuganathan including the loan application as well as the other documents, it is crystal clear that he belonged to the Low Income Group. Therefore, if only the petitioner pays the entire principal amount and 50% of the interest, the rest 50% of interest and penal interest would be waived. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.