IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33367 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJENDRA KURUP, AGED 43, S/O. GANGADHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KANNAMKARA KEEZHOTTU VEEDU, KALANJOOR, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 694. BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SRI.M.S.KALESH, SMT.A.V.PRIYA, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SRI.V.VINAY MENON, SMT.JAYALEKSHMI K.V.P, SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ENATHU, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-691 526. 3. K.ANANDAN, KAIMALAZHIKATHU VEEDU, ENATH P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-691 526. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ W.P.(C).NO. 33367 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ petition is against steps initiated under the provisions of 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 loan availed from the second respondent Bank, the first respondent had proceeded against the immovable property, which is secured asset. Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) demanding payment of a balance amount of Rs.6,98,816/-, along with future interest. According to the petitioner, he is only a guarantor and the loan was available by the 3rd respondent. It is contended that the default was committed by the 3rd respondent by avoiding payment with deliberate and willful intention to see that the property belonging to the petitioner is sold and the arrears is wiped off in such a manner. According to the petitioner he is making all attempts to pay off the liability, in order to save the property from being sold and in spite of approach made seeking time for payment, the respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding with W.P.(C).NO. 33367 OF 2010 2 coercive steps. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 it is mentioned that, despite issuance of various notices, neither the petitioner nor the borrower had cared to discharge of liability, and inspite of receipt of Ext.P3 notice no amount was remitted either by the petitioner or by the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that a sum around Rs. 7,00,000/- is balance outstanding as on today. 3. Considering the effective alternative remedy available under the statute, it is not proper and justified for this Court in interfering with the proceedings, especially, in view of the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Sathyavathi Tandon in (2010(8) SCC 110). 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The limited prayer is to permit time till 31-03-2011 to pay off the entire liability. It is submitted that the petitioner is expecting some funds from disposal of certain other property and that the amount will be available before the said date. 5. Even though interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the W.P.(C).NO. 33367 OF 2010 3 view that the indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner till 31-03-2011, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 31-12-2010, further sums of Rs.50,000/- each on or before the last day of January and February 2011, and the entire balance amount due thereafter on or before 31-3-2011. 7. It is made clear that the respondents will be free to proceed with all steps against the 3rd respondent as well as further steps pursuance to Ext.P3 notice under the SARFAESI Act, except proclamation of sale of the property or dispossession of the same. It is also made clear that the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps in case if there is any default on the part of the petitioner in complying with any of the stipulation contained herein. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pm