IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C) NO.29761 OF 2010 -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------ LALY CYRIAC,THANNIVELL HOUSE,VALAMANGALA M PO,THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPPUZHA-688 532. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,PATTANAKKAD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER,PATTANAKKAD ALAPPUZHA-688 531. 2. CHIEF MANAGER(ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,ZONAL OFFICE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC. FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Jkk C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 29761 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of amounts due under a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent Bank during the year 2001, proceedings were pursued against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Invoking section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act the respondents have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate and an Advocate Commission was appointed to take over possession of the property. The Advocate Commissioner had issued Ext.P6 notice, requiring the petitioner to handover possession of the property. 2. It is noticed that, inspite of availability of effective statutory remedies, the petitioner has not chosen to avail the same for challenging the steps initiated under section W.P.(C) No. 29761/2010 2 13(4). Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on merits of the contentions raised. According to the petitioner, in spite of approaching the respondents seeking breathing time to pay off the outstanding dues, the coercive steps are being threatened. Hence, the petitioenr seeks interference of this court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, apart from the housing loan in question there is an educational loan availed by the petitioner along with others and a sum around Rs.84,000/- is outstanding payment in that loan account. It is further submitted that both the loan accounts are in chronic default and the petitioner was not keen in regularizing payment of the defaulted amounts. However, it is submitted that if the defaulted amounts in both the loan accounts are remitted immediately, the petitioner can be permitted to continue payment of future monthly instalments in both the accounts in accordance with the original schedule. 4. It is noticed that pursuant to an interim order W.P.(C) No. 29761/2010 3 passed by this Court on 28-9-2010 the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to regularize both the accounts by paying the defaulted amounts within a short time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further coercive steps for dispossession of the petitioner from the property in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the entire defaulted amounts (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in both the accounts, in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15-11-2010 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular instalments due with respect to the months starting from November, 2010 onwards, along with the above said payments. 6. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularized as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 29761/2010 4 to continue payment of future instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps pursuant to Ext.P6 notice. It is made clear that the benefit 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. mn.