IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34993 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.N. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS, THONAKKARA THAKIDIYEL HOUSE, VELLAD P.O., PATTAKKALAM, ALAKKODE (VIA), PIN-670 571. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES, SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KANNUR-670 001. 2. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KANNUR MAIN BRANCH, KANNUR-670 001. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KANNUR-670 001. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAKKODE-670 571. R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.M.P.R. NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 34993 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) . Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a working capital loan availed from respondents 1 and 2, immovable property which is the secured asset was sought to be taken over possession by the respondents. Invoking Section 14(1) of the Act, respondents had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and that court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the secured assets. According to the petitioner, the coercive actions were being pursued without considering the request made for permitting regularisation of the loan account. 2. Considering the effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner under section 17(1), this court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition, since the petitioner had not challenged any steps taken under section 13(4) before WP(C) .34993/2010 2 the statutory authority. However as a gesture of indulgence the dispossession was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. It is reported that the condition stipulated has already been complied with. 3. Learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that proceedings in question was initiated with respect to arrears in two loan accounts. It is further stated that there is yet another loan account which is in default. However it is submitted that the working capital loan account is in default to the tune of around Rs.19,00,000/-. Since the loan accounts are in chronic default, respondents 1 and 2 are not favouring the petitioner to permit regularisation. 4. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated. On the other hand the limited prayer is only to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of an offer that the defaulted amounts will be paid within a short period. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated WP(C) .34993/2010 3 above, I am of the view that eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to regularise the account by payment of the amounts in arrears. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery, provided the petitioner remits the amount in arrears (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses, if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.1.2011 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months. Petitioner shall also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months along with the above said payment. 7. If payment of the defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, the respondents 1 and 2 shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default if any committed in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated WP(C) .34993/2010 4 above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of proceedings initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .34993/2010 5