IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 5894 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- C.L.VARGHESE, S/O. C.V.LONAPPAN, AGED 51 YEARS, CHEERAN HOUSE, 23, ROHINI, HARI SRI NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.K.P.SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, GHANIS BUILDING, KUNNATHURMEDU POST, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 013. 2. THE MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, KUNNAMKULAM MAIN BRANCH, KUNNAMKULAM-680 503, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.K.JOHN,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5894/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 06/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. PKD/RO/GEN/LEG/902/2010-11 DTD. 15/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. UNDER SEC. 13 (2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. PKD/RO/LEG/1175/10-11 DTD. 16/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 21/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 5894 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondents for recovery of the loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks facility to regularise the loan account and permission to pay off the balance amounts in accordance with the original loan agreement. 2. This is opposed by the learned standing counsel for the bank. According to the respondents, it is not now possible to regularise the loan account because the partners of the firm to whom the loan was granted are at loggerheads, which would hamper the operation of the accounts itself. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. This Court on 24.2.2011 passed the following interim order: “SC is directed to get instructions regarding possibility of permitting regularisation. In the meanwhile, there will be an interim stay against dispossession of the petitioner from the property pursuant to Ext.P6 notice subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) within three weeks from today.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition w.p.c.5894/11 2 therein has been complied with by the petitioner. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay the balance amount due in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without default, coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge