IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18624 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.V.BABURAJ,KATTATHARA HOUSE, S.R.M.ROAD,ERNAKULAM-18. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY SRI. R.S. KALKURA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C) No18624 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs.31 lakhs from the 1st respondent bank on 17.11.2009 creating security interest over the property in question. According to the petitioner, as given in the opening paragraph of the Writ Petition, it was liable to be paid in 15 years at the rate of Rs. 33,000/- per month. There occurred some default, under which circumstance, the Bank proceeded with the steps under the SARFAESI Act issuing Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner taking possession of the property under Rule 8(1) which made the petitioner to approach this Court contending that the entire proceeding is perse wrong and illegal, in so far as, no notice whatever has been issued to the petitioner so as to justify any action to be pursued under Section 13(4) or even the possession notice as borne by Ext.P1. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits on instructions that Section 13(2) notice was very much issued to the petitioner and that the same was served to him on W.P.(C) No.18624/2010 2 23.3.2010. Eventhough there is a contention for the petitioner that no such notice was served to him, it is however given by the counsel in the 'synopsis' of the Writ Petition that the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Anyhow, this Court does not propose to go into the correctness of the submission made by the petitioner, in view of the nature of the relief proposed to be given, taking note of the limited prayer now pressed before this Court. The learned counsel of the bank submits that the monthly EMI was out of Rs.20,166/- spread over a period of 15 years and right from the beginning, the petitioner was a chronic defaulter, which made the 'overdue' amount itself to come around Rs.2,60,292/- as on date. Unless and until the said amount is cleared, the question of regularisation of the loan account is not liable to be entertained, submits the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made persuasive submission to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to have the loan account regularised, asserting that the petitioner does not intend to press any other ground raised W.P.(C) No.18624/2010 3 in the Writ Petition. In such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire 'overdue' amount by way of '3' equal monthly instalments (as stated in Ground 'C' and as prayed for in prayer No.4 of the Writ Petition); the first of which shall be effected on or before the 15th of July 2010; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th of succeeding months. Subject to this, the loan account will stand regularised and this will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to clear the regular EMIs without fail. It is made clear that if any default is made with regard to the satisfaction of the liability as to the 'overdue' amount, or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ps