IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 31876 of 2006(T) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. C.R.ROY, 'JANANI NIVAS', KALAVAMKODAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. MRS.J.JANANI, 'JANANI NIVAS', KALAVAMCODAM P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, BAMBAY LIFE BUILDING, 45/47, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE. 2. THE AREA MANAGER, LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., AREA OFFICE, LEELA TOWERS, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31876/2006 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 (2) RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 8/11/2006 RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF RS.5,250/- FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 30/03/2007 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.7000/-. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 30/04/2007 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.7000/-. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 30/05/2007 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.7000/-. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 4/09/2007 ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF RS.7000/- EACH. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 3/11/2007 ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE REMITTANCES. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 3/11/2007 OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 31876 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. At the time of admission, this Court passed the following interim order on 1.12.2006. “................ There will be stay against enforcement of Ext.P1 proposal for taking over and sale of petitioners' building for two months on petitioner remitting rs.50,000/- within six weeks from now. Petitioner will make specific proposal for payment of balance amount for this to consider the same after making payment as above within six weeks”. The said interim order was modified on 1.3.2007 as follows: “Interim stay extended for six months on condition that the petitioner deposits at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month”. This interim order was being extended from time to time. 2. Now, that there is an order permitting the petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month, I feel that the writ petition itself can be disposed of in terms of that order, W.P.(C).No. 31876 OF 2006 2 permitting the petitioner to continue paying at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month until the entire amounts are paid off. However, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has certain dispute regarding the adjustments of amounts already paid and he also claims benefit of one time settlement scheme. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall continue to pay at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month until the entire dues are completely wiped off. In the meantime, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall issue to the petitioner a statement of account giving all details of calculation of interest and adjustments of amounts paid by the petitioner. it would be open to the petitioner to file objections to the said statement of account which shall be considered by the 2nd respondent and if any of the objections are accepted appropriate deductions shall be made in the amount payable. If the petitioner files an application for the benefit of one time settlement scheme, it shall be considered by the W.P.(C).No. 31876 OF 2006 3 respondents 1 and 2, if a scheme for one time settlement is currently in force and pass appropriate orders thereon. If the petitioner is given the benefit of one time settlement scheme, if any, the balance amount due shall also be adjusted accordingly. However, in the case of granting benefits of one time settlement scheme, payment of the balance amount shall be in accordance with the conditions of such order on the application for one time settlement and not in installments of Rs.7,000/- as directed above. If the petitioner pays the installments on the first working day of every month, further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any one installment, or as per the order under the one time settlement scheme, if any, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings under the Act, without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-