IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34171 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BETTY JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, METRO WEDDING PLAZA, METRO BAZAR, ANGAMALY-683 572. 2. DEEPTHY BETTY, W/O.BETTY JOSEPH, MUNDADAN HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY-683 572. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (UNDER SARFAESI ACT), UCO BANK, KAVERI BUILDINGS, CLOTH BAZAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, COCHIN-31. 3. CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK, ASSET MANAGEMENT BRANCH, AMBAL BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, 218 PATHERI ROAD, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 006. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) No.34172/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009 & W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. These two writ petitions are filed by partners of two sister concerns. Challenge in both the cases are against proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The respondents have already took steps as provided under Section 13 (4) and further steps have now been proceeded for sale of the secured assets and also to take physical possession of the properties invoking Section 14 (1) of the Act. According to the petitioners they have approached the respondent Bank making certain offer for 'One Time Settlement'/'Compromise Settlement'. But the Bank has not accepted such offer since the amount W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009 & W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009 -2- promised are not agreeable. The petitioners were advised to improve their offer. 2. Heard, standing counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that with respect to the loan covered under W.P.(C) 34172/2009, steps for sale of the secured assets was initiated as early in the year 2008, and the 1st petitioner along with another partner had approached this court in W.P.(C) No.35127/2008. Eventhough this court has shown indulgence in restraining coercive steps on condition of payment of a part of the arrears, the petitioners have not chosen to avail the benefit granted therein. There is a specific reservation made in the judgment of the said writ petition, enabling the respondents to proceed with further steps on failure to make payment of the amount stipulated therein. 3. Under such circumstances the respondents contended that W.P.(C) No.34172/2009 is not at all sustainable. Further it is contended that in both the cases W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009 & W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009 -3- the proposal for compromise settlement has already been rejected and intimations were issued to the petitioners to the effect that the Bank is not agreeable to accept such offer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of the writ petitions the petitioners have approached the respondent Bank with fresh offers for compromise settlement, enhancing the settlement offers. It is also submitted that in order to show bonafides, an amount of Rs.25 lakhs was remitted in a non-lien account of one of the relatives of the petitioners. Learned standing counsel submitted that he has no instruction regarding receipt of any such proposal and it is further stated that deposit of any amount in Bank Account of a person who is neither a borrower nor a guarantor cannot be taken as part payment made in pursuance of an offer for settlement. 5. Having considered facts and circumstances of the cases and submissions on both sides, I am of the opinion W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009 & W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009 -4- that it is for the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the authorities of the respondent Bank, with respect to compromise settlement of the loan account. This court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 is not supposed to enter upon any such negotiations regarding any of the aspects. Nor this court can consider pendency of any such negotiations regarding compromise settlement, as a ground to interfere with proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. It is for the petitioners to approach the authorities of the respondent Bank with reasonable offer and also with deposit of reasonable amount in order to show their bonafides. 6. However, since it is submitted that as such there is no sale proclaimed with respect to the properties, I am inclined to show indulgence to restrain the respondents from taking any further coercive steps for a reasonable period in order to facilitate the petitioners to make such approach as stated above. Therefore the writ petitions are W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009 & W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009 -5- disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps with respect to sale or with respect to take over of actual possession of the immovable properties for a period of one month from today, in order to facilitate the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities persuing 'One Time Settlement'/Compromise Settlement', provided the petitioners makes appropriate offers regarding such settlement within a period of two weeks from today. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/