IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35018 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAVEENDRAN S., PRASADAM, KALLUVETTAMKUZHY, MANCODE P.O., CHITHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SMT.C.G.PREETHA, SRI.T.K.SANDEEP, SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR, SRI.ANEISH RAVINDRA, SRI.ARUN KRISHNADHAN, SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL). RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION V, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGION V, ARPAN TOWERS, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM - 691 008. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KADAKKAL BRANCH, KOLLAM - 691 536. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35018 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 notice issued with respect to the steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repaying loans availed by the petitioner from the respondents, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. It is the case of the petitioner that on publishing Ext.P5 notice the petitioner had offered payment of a sum of Rs.7 lakhs which was refused to be accepted. It is further stated that subsequently he had effected payment of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs on 20.11.2010. But without considering such payment, coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act was proceeded against and the Bank had demanded payment of the entire arrears in a lump sum. Hence the petitioner is seeking interference of this court. 2. It is noticed that on an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this court in WP(C). 29329/10 and W.P.(C).35018/10 -2- in Ext.P4 judgment the petitioner was given liberty to approach the respondent Bank offering 'One Time Settlement' and further directing the Bank to keep in abeyance recovery steps till a decision is taken on the basis of such offer. According to learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, the petitioner had failed to comply with the condition in making any concrete offer for 'One Time Settlement'. 3. Eventhough this court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition, on the basis of a firm offer made by the petitioner to pay off the amounts due within a short period, an interim order was issued against dispossession of the petitioner from the property, directing the Bank to appropriate the remittance of Rs.10 lakhs already made. Subsequently it is stated that the petitioner had remitted a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 8.12.2010. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the balance outstanding after crediting all such payments will be nearly Rs.12 lakhs. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of the amount outstanding within a short period on the basis of a further undertaking that all challenges raised against the SARFAESI proceedings are relinquished and that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ W.P.(C).35018/10 -3- petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest if any accruing in 4 (four) equal monthly installments, falling due on or before 15.2.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 5. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents seeking issuance of a copy of the statement of accounts with respect to transactions in the account, and if any such request is made the Bank may issue such copies on usual terms. It will be open for the petitioner to bring to the notice of the respondent Bank that the material irregularity or mistake if any in the accounts, which, if found genuine, will be corrected by the respondent Bank. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the installments 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