IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35186 of 2010(W) -------------------------- CMP.4284/2010 of C.J.M.,MANJERI .................... PETITIONER:- ------------------- P.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. VEERAN, PALAKKA PALLIYALI HOUSE, PULISSERY, VANIYAMBALAM.P.O., VIA. WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SMT.A.LOWSY RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, WANDOOR BRANCH, MALAPPURAM-679328. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., WANDOOR-679328. BY SC SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.35186 of 2010-W. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. By resorting to steps under Section 14(1), the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached and that Court had appointed an Advocate Commission to take over possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were pursued without considering request made before the respondents to permit payment of the defaulted amounts or for permitting payment of the entire balance amount in instalments. Hence the petitioner seeks interdiction with the coercive steps now initiated. WP(C).No.35186 of 2010-W. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan in question was taken as early as in the year 2005. It is further submitted that the balance outstanding as on 10.12.2010 was around to ` 2.71 lakhs. It is also submitted that the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act is perfectly legal and valid. 4. It is noticed that the petitioner has not chosen to avail the statutory remedy provided under Sec.17(1) when steps were initiated under Sec.13(4). Hence any interdiction with respect to the proceedings now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution, will not be proper and justified. 5. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when this writ petition came up for admission an interim order was issued against dispossession of the petitioner from the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting an amount of ` 75,000/-. It is reported that the petitioner had WP(C).No.35186 of 2010-W. 3 remitted the said amount in compliance with the condition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated. On the other hand, limited prayer is only to permit the petitioner to make payment of the amounts outstanding in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable period, in instalments. 8. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property initiated pursuant to the proceedings under Ext.P1 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance amounts outstanding, along with interest and expenses if WP(C).No.35186 of 2010-W. 4 any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 13.1.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of orders if any, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and on such event the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-