IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23151 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMESH KUMAR.V.R., S/O.RAMANKUTTY, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ODANUR, PARALI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.S.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CANARA BANK, BIG BAZAR BRANCH, PALAKKAD-14, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, BIG BAZAR BRANCH, PALAKKAD-14, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.23151 of 2010-T ---------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed two loans, one is a 'housing loan' and the other is 'LUCC loan', from the respondent Bank, creating security interest over the property in question. Since the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, both the loans were declared as 'NPA' and the Bank proceeded with further steps invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, which was sought to be intercepted by filing W.P (C) No.5492 of 2010, earlier, culminating in Ext.P7 judgment. 2. As evident from Ext.P7, the petitioner cleared the entire 'overdue' amount under the housing loan and agreed to clear the amount under the overdraft amount by way of reasonable instalments, simultaneously, agreeing that the securitisation application bearing No.492 of 2009 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, would not be pressed any further. Accordingly, necessary relief was given to the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. It is borne out by the records that, the petitioner turned to be a defaulter again, which made the Bank to proceed with W.P(C) No.23151 of 2010-T 2 further steps, driving the petitioner to this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits with reference to the contents of the statement that, the course pursued by the Bank is perfectly in conformity with the statutory requirements and also in tune with the directions given by this Court vide Ext.P7 judgment. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner turned to be a defaulter again and this being the position, no further indulgence is warranted. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, to enable the petitioner to save his property as the last chance, the respondent Bank has considered his request and agreed to provide some breathing time, if the petitioner satisfies a sum of Rs.2 lakhs before the sale of the property scheduled on 6.8.2010 and the balance amount is cleared by way of 'three' equal monthly instalments. 4. Taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner might be given a chance to wipe of the entire liability by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments, this Court, as a special case, grants such permission. Accordingly, further proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, on W.P(C) No.23151 of 2010-T 3 condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.2 lakhs before the sale scheduled on 6.8.2010 and the balance shall be cleared by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 15th of September, 2010; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the due amount as above, it will be open to the Bank, to proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab