IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10443 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------------- CMP.835/2011 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O.ENTHEEN, NAMBANKUNNATHU HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM WEST P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KOTTAKKAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE/ AUTHORISED OFFICER, KOTTAPADY, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676 503. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KOTTAKKAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK, KOTTAPADY, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676 503. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAKKAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK, KOTTAPADY, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676 503. BY ADV. MR.DEVAPRASANTH P.S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10443 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, immovable property, which is the secured asset was proceeded against by invoking Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P1 is the petition filed in this regard before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. The petitioner apprehends that he will be dispossessed from the property in question through the proceedings in a hasty manner. It is contended that the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to the request made by the petitioner to permit payment of the entire amount in a phased manner, or to permit regularisation of the account. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the loan account is in chronic default and regularisation of the account is not possible. It is submitted that there is a total arrears of more than Rs.11,13,000/-. W.P.(C).10443/11 -2- 3. Considering availability of effective remedy provided under the statute, it is not justified for this court to interdict with. This is especially in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (8) SCC 110). 4. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit payment of the entire dues in a phased manner, subject to an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is not intending to pursue statutory remedy, if any available. 5. Considering the limited relief I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, the petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the entire liability in instalments, within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be at W.P.(C).10443/11 -3- liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb