IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 2557 of 2008(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- 1. V.S.MADHU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KALLUKALAYIL HOUSE, NELLIKKALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. N.REMA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.V.S. MADHU, KALLUKALAYIL HOUSE, NELLIKKALA P.O PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UCO BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, OVER BRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK, MALLAPUZHASSERY BRANCH, NELLIKKALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA 689 643. BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE K. VARGHESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 2557 OF 2008 D ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated against the petitioners. Petitioners submit that they have availed of a loan in January, 2004. Following the defaults that were committed, the Bank initiated proceedings and notice issued under Section 13(2) was not even responded. Finally the Bank issued Ext.P2 possession notice and counsel submits that symbolic possession has also been taken over. It is thereafter that petitioners submitted Ext.P3 representation requesting for permitting them to pay the dues within six months from 1/3/08. As it did not evoke any response from the Bank, this writ petition has been filed. WPC 2557/08 :2 : 2. Counsel for the Bank submits that petitioner is a chronic defaulter and that despite the opportunities given, the petitioners did not clear the arrears. On this ground, it is submitted that the petitioners do not deserve any sympathy. True, Bank cannot be faulted for the action that it has taken and the symbolic possession of the property that it has taken over. 3. However, having regard to the fact that the only request made by the counsel for the petitioners is for an instalment facility to discharge the liability, I am inclined to think that yet another opportunity should be given to the petitioners for safeguarding the property from a distress sale. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that within two weeks from today, petitioners shall remit 1/4th of the amount that is due to the Bank. Subject to such payment, further proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall be deferred. Thereafter the balance will be permitted to be paid by the petitioners in three equal monthly instalments, first of which will be payable on the 15th of February, 2008 and the subsequent WPC 2557/08 :3 : instalments payable on 15th of every succeeding month. It is clarified that in case the petitioners commit default in paying any one of the instalments, Bank will be free to continue the action it has taken, without further notice to the petitioners. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp