IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10892 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.MOHAMMED, CHEERATHADATHIL HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM, ERIYAD, PUNNAPPALA.P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. C.T.MOOSA, S/O.SAITHALAVI HAJI, CHOLATHODI HOUSE, P.O.KAVANNOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 673 644. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.10892 of 2011-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a loan availed from respondents 1 and 2, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The immovable property, which is the secured asset was taken over possession, symbolically, on issuing Ext.P1 notice. Ext.P2 is the publication made with respect to steps taken under Section 13(4). 2. The loan in question was availed in the year 2001. According to the petitioner the default occurred due to unforeseen circumstances and due to heavy loss sustained in agricultural operations. However, it is contended that the coercive steps were pursued without considering the request made to permit payment of the amounts in a phased manner. W.P(C) No.10892 of 2011-J 2 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that the loan in question is in chronic default and the outstanding balance is around Rs.4 lakhs. 4. Considering availability of effective statutory remedy, it is not justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court for permitting payment of the entire balance in instalments, within a reasonable time. The said appeal is made on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability within a reasonable time, in instalments. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all W.P(C) No.10892 of 2011-J 3 further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.10892 of 2011-J 4