IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9246 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NOUFAL N., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.M.H.NAZARUDEEN, ROSE LAND, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-691 010. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD, SMT.S.GIFFARA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- ANDHRA BANK, REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER, SKP BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW VETTOOR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 9246 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against by invoking provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) . Ext.P4 is the possession notice issued intimating steps taken under section 13(4). The petitioner is disputing the action on the ground that the amount under demand is not true and correct and that no proper credit was given for payments effected so far. It is also contended that coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to the request for permitting regularisation on the basis of offer made for payment of the amounts in default. 2. Heard; Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner had not taken any earnest efforts to clear the arrears, inspite of repeated demands. It is submitted that the total WP(C) 9246/2011 2 amount outstanding is more than Rs.6.46 lakhs and even the amounts remaining overdue is more than Rs.60,000/-. 3. Considering availability of an effective statutory remedy it is not proper and justified on the part of this court to interfere with the matter. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit regularisation on the basis that repayment period of the loan which was availed in the year 2008 is for 10 years. The prayer is made also on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy. 4. Considering the limited relief I am of the view that eventhough interference on merits is not possible the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the loan account. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amount overdue for payment( defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.4.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding WP(C) 9246/2011 3 months, along with payment of the regular instalments due for the respective months. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the Bank seeking rectification of mistake if any in the accounts, and if there is any genuine mistake the respondent Bank may consider such request. 6. If payment of the defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to pay the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, or any one of the future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the proceedings already initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) 9246/2011 4