IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33682 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER ------------------ P.S.SAJAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. LOYAL TECH PILE FOUNDATIONS, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 307. BY ADV. SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/S. VIJAYA BANK, TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, TRIPUNUITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 301. 2. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-682 301. 3. RAJ MOHAN L, ADVOCATE-COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. R1 & R2 BY SMT. LATHA KRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dlk WP(C).No. 33682 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REGISTERED DEMAND NOTICE DTD.19.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P2 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED NOTICE DTD.10.12.2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 13.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. dlk S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33682 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due from the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, which is under challenge in this writ petition. But, the petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks facility to pay off the amount in instalments. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs within one month and the balance amount in six equal monthly instalments. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. She points out that the guarantor had already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by an application under Section 17 of the Act and interim orders were granted on certain conditions, which have not been complied with by the guarantor W.P.(C)No.33682/11 2 or the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, filing of this writ petition itself is an abuse of process of Court, insofar as the petitioner could have taken advantage of the benefit of the interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if the guarantor did not, which he has not chosen to do. 3. Although I find merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, still I am inclined to give the petitioner some indulgence in the matter. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.15 lakhs on or before 31.1.2012. The balance amount shall be paid in six equal monthly instalments starting from 1.3.2012. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the Rs.15 lakhs and the further instalments on due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. W.P.(C)No.33682/11 3 However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of either the Rs.15 lakhs or any one of the further instalments as directed above, it would be open to the respondents 1 and 2 to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.33682/11 4 W.P.(C)No.33682/11 5