IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36323 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROBIN C.VARGHESE, CHANGETHU HOUSE, KAIPATTOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., CHANDANAPPALLY BRANCH, REP. BY MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA, POST CHANDANAPPALLY. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAEST ACT), FEDERAL BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) SRI.P.R.MILTON SRI.K.J.CHACKOCHAN STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.S.P.KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 36323 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs.8.5 lakhs from the first respondent Bank in January, 2006. However, the petitioner could not satisfy the liability by remitting the regular monthly instalments, which made him a defaulter; under which circumstance, the Bank proceeded with coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act, which in turn is subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition. 2. When the matter taken before this Court, the coercive proceedings were intercepted on 16.12.2009, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 31.12.2009. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by this Court has already been complied with. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the 'over due' amount in respect of the defaulted instalments was Rs.1.65 lakhs and that, if the balance amount after giving credit to the amount already deposited by the petitioner (pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court) is satisfied, the loan account could be regualrised. WP(C) No.36323/2009 2 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit a further sum of Rs.65,000/- on or before the 31st of this month on which event, the housing loan account of the petitioner will stand regualrised. This will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to pay the regular EMIs. Subject to the above, the recovery proceedings now being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if any default is made by the petitioner in satisfying the overdue amounts towards the defaulted instalments or if any two consecutive defaults are made in satisfying the regular EMIs, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, by pursuing such steps, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc