IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28368 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- OMANA, W/O.RENADEV, AGED 40 YEARS, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, KOMMADY, THUMBOLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA – 688 001. 2. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, KOMMADY BRANCH, REPT. BY ITS MANAGER – 688 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI. SAJUSH PAUL, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28368 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner availed a housing loan from the respondent Bank during the year 2006, with a repayment period of 15 years, which will end only in the year 2021. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the respondents initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and immovable property, which is the secured asset, was taken over possession symbolically, on issuing notice under Section 13 (4). It is admitted that during May 2010 the 2nd respondent had afforded the petitioner with an opportunity to regularise the account by payment of the defaulted amounts, which the petitioner could not comply with. According to the petitioner, inspite of willingness expressed by her to regularise the account, the Bank is proceeding with coercive steps. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. It is pertinent to note that, inspite of specific W.P.(C).28368/2010-U -2- remedies available under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has not chosen to object the demand raised under Section 13(2), nor had chosen to file appeal under Section 17(1) against the impugned proceedings. Under such circumstances it is not proper and justified on the part of this court to interfere with. However, learned counsel for the petitioner undertook that the petitioner is relinquishing all her rights to challenge the proceedings before the statutory authorities. On the other hand, request is only to permit payment of the defaulted amounts in order to regularise the account. 3. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses due, will be around Rs.15,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner had committed consecutive defaults and the loan account is in chronic arrears. 4. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in any manner with the proceedings now initiated. However, I am of the opinion that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to regularise the account. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedings initiated on the basis of notices already issued, provided the W.P.(C).28368/2010-U -3- petitioner remits the entire amount in default (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses due) on or before 31.10.2010. The petitioner shall also remit the regular instalments payable with respect to the month of October 2010 along with such payment. 6. If payment of the defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments as per the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the monthly instalments the respondents will be at 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