IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34150 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.MOHAMMED ASLAM, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN HAJEE, RESIDING AT ATHINJAL, P.O.MANIKOTH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY JAWAHAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 61, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, PULLEPADI JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035. 3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT), CHIEF MANAGER OF THE BANK, OFFICE AT FORT ROAD (PB NO.23), KANNUR-670 001. 4. ANJILATH ABOOBACKER, S/O. LATE K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, THATTUMMAL, BELOOR VILLAGE, P.O.ATTEGANAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 531. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY HANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 34150 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitistation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to failure in repayment of amounts availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank under a cash credit facility, proceedings was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. The 3rd respondent had now issued Ext.P4 notice as contemplated under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules, 2002) intimating steps contemplated under Section 13 (4). 2. It is noticed that the petitioner had not invoked any of the statutory remedies available at any stage of the proceedings. Hence considering the dictum laid by the Hon'ble apex court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tondon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110] it is 2 WP(C) No. 34150/2010 not proper and justified for this Court to interfere with the proceedings invoking powers under Article 226. 3. Having confronted with the above position, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. On the other hand, prayer is only to permit the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in a phased manner within a reasonable time. 4. Heard, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Bank. It is submitted that there is an outstanding balance of around Rs.17.28 lakhs plus interest and incidental charges. It is further submitted that the cash credit facility remains overdrawn for a considerable period and the petitioner was not taking any effective steps to wipe off the liability. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting the 3 WP(C) No. 34150/2010 petitioner to pay off the liability within a reasonable time in instalments. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps pursuant to the notices already issued, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any accruing, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 20.12.2010 and on or before the 20th day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued. It is also made clear that the relief granted above is subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc