IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34769 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN K.V., KALLAYIL HOUSE, KURUKKENPARA, KUNNAMKULAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHITTANOOR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/ CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, K.D.S.BUILDING, SWARAJ ROUND EAST, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001. 2. INDIAN BANK, KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH, TOWN HALL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER 680503. BY R1-R2 ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vk C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 34769 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is approaching this Court challenging Ext.P2 notice of sale proclamation issued under the provisions of the Securitistation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against and it is now put to sale. According to the petitioner, the coercive actions were pursued without considering the request to permit payment of the amounts within a reasonable time, in instalments. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the loan in question was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.6,20,000/- and the petitioner had not remitted any amounts to the loan account in repayment. It is further 2 WP(C) No. 34769/2010 submitted that the business activity of book binding for which the loan was sanctioned, now stands discontinued and there is an outstanding balance of about Rs.6.50 lakhs. 3. Since the petitioner had not availed any of the statutory remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act, against steps taken prior to publication of the sale notice, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in the matter. 4. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the Writ Petition came up for admission this Court had stayed confirmation of sale if any, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner had already remitted the said amount. It is further stated that no sale has taken place on the basis of Ext.P2 notice. 5. Under the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner appeals to this Court to have indulgence in permitting payment of the balance amounts outstanding, in instalments, within a reasonable time. 3 WP(C) No. 34769/2010 Such a request is made on the basis of specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to invoke any of the statutory remedies available. 6. Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, I am inclined to grant relief to the extent as prayed, on an equitable basis. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps for physical dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.01.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the notices already issued. It 4 WP(C) No. 34769/2010 is also made clear that the relief granted above is subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc