IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25793 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- CMP.246/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.SANKARAN, DOOR NO.44, T.C.NO.23/896, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.25793 of 2010-Y ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs.4.29 lakhs on 6.1.2006, agreeing to repay the amount in 180 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.4,683/-. In spite of the agreement as above, the repayment was not effected on time, under which circumstances, the Bank declared the account as ‘NPA’ and proceeded with further steps invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act; which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the default was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen circumstances and that earnest efforts are being made to clear the 'overdue' amount and the petitioner might be given one more chance to clear the same. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the steps taken by the Bank are strictly in conformity with the W.P(C) No.25793 of 2010-Y 2 statutory requirements and not assailable under any circumstances. The learned counsel further submits that the total outstanding arrears will come about to Rs.5,27,317/- with further interest and expenses; while the liability in respect of the 'overdue' amount is Rs.1,20,178/- and that, unless and until the petitioner clears the entire 'overdue' in respect of the defaulted instalments, the question of regularization does not arise at all. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to discharge the liability as follows: The petitioner is directed to clear the entire overdue amount by way of 'two' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of September, 2010; and the next one on or before the 20th of October, 2010. Subject to this, the loan account of the petitioner shall stand regularised. This however, will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to clear the regular EMIs as well. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the 'overdue' amount as above, or if any two consecutive defaults are committed with regard W.P(C) No.25793 of 2010-Y 3 to the regular EMIs, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ab