Abdul Rahman Sajid v. Lic Housing Finance Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/23RD ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31505 of 2015 (K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- ABDUL RAHMAN SAJID, KP-XI-159, KUNNI VEEDU, RAMAPURAM LANE, RRA-24, NCC ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------- 1.

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2ND FLOOR, LEELA TOWERS, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004. 2.

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (UNDER SARFAESI ACT), 2ND FLOOR, LEELA TOWERS, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/

WP(C).No. 31505 of 2015 (K) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

-------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.28.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.2.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.11.9.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31505 OF 2015 (K) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who had availed of a loan from the respondent company, defaulted in repayment of the same. The petitioner is aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent company for recovery of the defaulted loan amounts.

When the matter was taken up for admission, it is stated by the learned Standing counsel for the respondent company that the account of the petitioner has already been regularised through amounts that have been paid by the petitioner yesterday. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Standing counsel for the respondent company, the writ petition is closed, making it clear that if the possession of the secured assets has been taken by the respondent company in the meanwhile, the same shall be restored to the petitioner forthwith.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/15/10/15