IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26869 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ANTONY SEBASTIAN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. K.S.ANTONY, KOYIPPARAMBIL, PALLITHODU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. SURAJ SEBASTIAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, KOYIPPARAMBIL, PALLITHODU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.V.SHYLAJA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY THE MANAGER, THURAVOOR BRANCH. 2. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ZONAL OFFICE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. MR.C.A. JOY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.26869 of 2010-G ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioners, having defaulted repayment of the loan availed from the respondent, has now been proceeded against for taking over possession of the secured assets. According to the petitioners the property, which is the secured asset has already been agremented for sale, as evident from Ext.P3, and that they need only some time to pay off the liability. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents disputed genuineness of Ext.P3, contending that the purchaser has not come forward with any concrete proposal or had undertaken for payment of the amounts due. 3. It is noticed that the proceedings are only at the stage of Section 13(2) notice. The petitioners are at liberty to object such W.P(C) No.26869 of 2010-G 2 notice and further to seek appellate remedy available under the statute. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in this jurisdiction. 4. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a fervent appeal to permit payment of the entire arrears within a reasonable time in instalments. Eventhough the learned counsel for the respondent Bank opposed the prayer, having considered totality of circumstances attendant in this case, I am inclined to show indulgence in permitting the petitioners to pay off the entire liability in instalments. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep further steps pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 notices in abeyance, on condition of the petitioners remitting the entire arrears due, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.9.2010 and on or before the 15th day of every succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above indulgence will be subject to the condition that the W.P(C) No.26869 of 2010-G 3 petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this Court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab