IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31527 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SOMAN A.K., S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 46 YEARS, ARIYATTIL HOUSE, VENGAL, ALUMTHURUTHY P.O., THIRUVALLA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KARTHIKABHAVAN, PURAMATTOM P.O., KOIPPRAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN– 688 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KUMBANAD BRANCH, PIN – 689 547. R1 & R2 BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), S.C, S.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31527 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 14(1) of the Act. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has not resorted to any of the statutory remedies provided under the Act, at any stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, it is not proper or justified for this court to interfere with the steps taken, especially in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme W.P.(C).31527/10-M -2- Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (8) SCC 110). 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the loan in question was taken in the year 2005 and the repayment period was for 15 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. On the other hand the petitioner seeks to permit regularisation of the loan account by payment of the amounts in default. 4. Heard; learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank. In a statement filed on behalf of the respondents it is mentioned that as on 31.5.2009 a sum of Rs.4,43,117/- was outstanding and at present the amount due is more than Rs.5.30 lakhs. It is noticed that by virtue of an interim order issued by this court the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 5. Considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, and also considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings I am inclined to permit the petitioner to regularise the account by paying the defaulted amounts. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the W.P.(C).31527/10-M -3- respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to notices already issued, provided the petitioner makes payment of the entire defaulted amounts (monthly instalments defaulted along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.12.2010 and on or before 15.1.2011. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular instalments due for the months of December 2010 and January 2011, along with the above said payments. 7. If payment of the overdue amounts are cleared as directed above, the respondents 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 in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above or any future 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