IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 2703 of 2009 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12613/2009 Dated 01/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- JOSEY.K.C., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.A.V.CLEETUS, KURISINGAL HOUSE, IX/153, KAMBIRI ROAD, FORT COCHI. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HDFC HOUSE, POST BAG NO. 1667, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, KOCHI-15. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2703 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1st October, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.12613 of 2009, the writ petitioner is before this Court in the present writ appeal. 2. The appellant who had availed a loan from the respondent Housing Development Finance Corporation to the tune of Rupees four lakhs for the purpose of construction of a house, committed default and as such proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have to be initiated and the first step of issuing notices under Exts.P1 and P2 had taken place. On receipt of such notices, the appellant submitted a reply seeking permission to pay the W.A. No.2703 of 2009 2 overdue amount and thereafter to regularise the loan account. As the same was not considered, he approached this Court in the impugned Writ Petition. During the pendency of the writ petition by way of conditional interim orders, the appellant has effected two payments in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.55,000/- and even thereafter the outstanding balance is by Rs.3,50,000/- and odd. 3. Considering the plight of the middle class people after obtaining loan for construction of small houses and sometimes their inability to repay the loan amount within time, the learned Single Judge permitted the appellant to pay off the entire arrears in instalments and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/writ petitioner has approached this Court, as already noted. 4. Even though various contentions are raised before us, the fact of availing the loan and his liability to repay is undisputed and as such, we find no merit in the contentions of the appellant. W.A. No.2703 of 2009 3 5. However, when this case was taken up for hearing earlier, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Annexure A1 communication received by the appellant, the total arrears as on 9.10.2009 was Rs.74860/- and the appellant was ready to pay the same. In order to test his bona fides, we had granted some time to the appellant and now it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the sum of Rs.74860/- which is rounded up to 75,000/- has been paid by the appellant. Appreciating the bona fide efforts of the appellant, the respondent Bank is agreeable to regularise the loan account and according to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI) would come around Rs.4636/- per month in addition to the liability of the appellant to pay the securitisation expenses which may come to around Rs.35000/-. 6. Considering the entire materials available on record, we find that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is directed to W.A. No.2703 of 2009 4 discharge the entire loan amount by Equated Monthly Instalments at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent Bank has fairly agreed to this suggestion. Learned counsel for the appellant is also agreeable for the same. Hence in modification of the order of the learned Single Judge, we pass the following order: i) The respondent Bank shall regularise the loan account of the appellant. ii) The appellant has to pay the Equated Monthly Instalments at the rate of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month without committing single default. iii) The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.15000/- Rupees fifteen thousand) within two weeks from today and from 1st of February, 2010 start paying the Equated Monthly Instalments regularly at the rate of Rupees five thousand per month. iv) It is made clear that if there is any default in payment of any one of the Equated Monthly Instalments, the concession given W.A. No.2703 of 2009 5 by this Court in the present order would stand cancelled and it is open to the respondent Bank to proceed as per the notices issued earlier. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns/vgs