IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31773 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.JEEVARAJ,S/O.NARAYANADAS,AJAYA BHAVAN, KAIPUZHA NORTH,KULANADA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE BANK OF MYSORE,CHENGANNUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, TMR BUILDINGS,MARKET ROAD,CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.31773 of 2010-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. The immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against and Ext.P1 notice was issued intimating steps taken under Section 13(4). Contention of the petitioner is that the coercive steps were pursued without considering his request for permitting regularisation of the account. 2. Considering availability of effective alternative remedy and also considering the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110), I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, through an interim W.P(C) No.31773 of 2010-V 2 order the proposed dispossession was stayed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.75,000/-. It is reported that the said amount has already been paid. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Bank, it is mentioned that the loan account is in chronic default and as on 5.11.2010 a sum of Rs.1,30,799/- is outstanding. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertook that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that he is withdrawing all contentions raised against the proceedings. On the other hand, limited prayer is made to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 4. Considering the request as stated above, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, the petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the liability within a short time, in instalments. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, W.P(C) No.31773 of 2010-V 3 subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab