IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20842 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VINCENT BENEDICT, S/O.K.A. BENEDICT, 'GEETHIKA', THRIPPERUNTHURA P.O. CHENNITHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 690 105. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., MAVELIKARA BRANCH, MAVELIKARA-690 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, HOTEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., MAVELIKARA BRANCH, MAVELIKARA-690 101. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN, SC, SOUTH INDIAN BANK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20842 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a housing loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the 1st respondent Bank in the year 2006. The petitioner was also a guarantor to another loan of Rs.6.75 lakhs availed by his wife Vanaja, proprietrix of M/s. Nayana Garments, Mavelikkara, from the very same Bank. Both the loans were procured, creating security interest over the property in question. But the repayment could not be effected on time; under which circumstance, the Bank declared the accounts as 'NPA' and proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 05.07.2010, ‘status quo’ was ordered to be maintained, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh within ten days, which is stated as complied with. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that, a total sum of nearly Rs.5 lakhs is due under both the loans as ‘overdue’ amount in respect of the defaulted instalments/ payments and if the petitioner satisfies the ‘overdue’ amount, the Bank is ready and willing to have the loan accounts regularized. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the 2 WP(C) No. 20842/2010 petitioner might be given some breathing time to clear the liability as above and to have the loan accounts regularized; simultaneously assuring that the regular EMIs will be effected without fail. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire ‘overdue’ amount by way of 'two' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of August, 2010 and the next one to be effected on or before the 20th of September, 2010. Subject to this, the loan accounts shall stand regularized. This will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to clear the regular payments as scheduled under the loan transactions. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to 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. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc