IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 3456 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. B.VENUGOPAL,AGE 52 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARA MENON, D-3 QUARTERS, CIVIL LINES AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR. 2. S.PADMAJA W/O. VENUGOPAL,CIVIL LINES AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HOUSING FINANCE LTD REGD.OFFICE 9TH FLOOR,ANTARIKSH BHAVAN 22, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,NEW DELHI-1 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HOUSING FINANCE LTD 4TH FLOOR,CAPITAL TOWERS,STATUE JUNCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL HOUSING BAN K, CORE 5-A 3RD FLOOR INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003. BY ADV. P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 3456 OF 2008 - J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P2, P3 and P7. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext. P5. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners had availed of a loan of Rs.10 lakhs, the EMI of which was Rs.10,600/- for 180 months. It is stated that the bank had unilaterally revised the EMI by Ext. P2. The number of monthly instalments is stated to be enhanced to 227 months. Default was committed in repayment and thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent complaining of the revised interest that has been levied. The bank classified the account as N.P.A. and proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Notices were issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) and thereafter symbolic possession also has been taken. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C)No.3456/2008 - 2 - 3. According to the bank, they have complied with all the statutory requirements. They would say that in terms of the loan agreement that the petitioners had entered into with them, interest is chargeable at the floating rate and not at any fixed rate. Ext. R2 (6) is the sanction letter which is relied on by the petitioner in support of this contention. They would therefore justify the action that they have taken. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised mainly two contentions. One is regarding the revised interest that has been levied. According to him, it is not the floating rate of interest that is applicable. He also would contend that in view of Section 31(j) of the Act even if the default as stated by the bank in Ext. P7 is right, that does not justify invocation of the proceedings under the Act. 5. From the above, it is evident that the matter requires appreciation of evidence, analysis of documents in which event alone the disputed question regarding the interest that is payable the correctness of the revision of number of instalments and also the correctness of the steps that has been taken by the bank needs to be assessed. W.P.(C)No.3456/2008 - 3 - 6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks consideration of Ext. P5, which is a complaint that is filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. If as stated by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has received Ext. P5, it is for the 3rd respondent to consider the same and pass orders thereon. 7. This, the 3rd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 8. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-