IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9923 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, JAYA VILASAM, CHENGAMANADU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER/ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, RASMAC, STATE BANK OF INDIA, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) NO. 9923 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 6th April , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a housing loan from the respondent Bank in the year 2006. But repayment could not be effected in time, under which circumstance, the respondent Bank was having no other alternative, but to proceed with further steps invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act , which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Mr. George Thomkas Mevada, the learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits with specific reference to the statement filed, that the account was declared as 'NPA' on 31.03.2007 and that the overdue amount itself will constitute Rs.1,82,920/-, stating that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter right from the beginning itself . It is also stated in paragraph '2' of the said statement that, pursuant to the steps taken by filing necessary petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act , as per W.P.(C) NO. 9923 OF 2010 2 the orders of the C.J.M. Kollam, physical possession of the building was taken on 13.03.2010 with the help of the Advocate Commissioner and thereafter, the building is kept under lock and key. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the default occurred was never because of any wilful laches or deliberate negligence, but because of some unforeseen circumstances. It is also stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire 'overdue' amount and that the petitioner might be permitted to clear the regular E.M.Is, assuring that the same will be effected without any fail. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to remit the entire 'overdue' amount within one month, on which event, physical possession of the building and premises shall be handed over to the petitioner in the presence of the concerned Advocate Commissioner, who was deputed to take possession of the building pursuant to the orders passed by the C.J.M. The petitioner shall pay the same batta to the Advocate Commissioner, as ordered by the C.J.M. in connection W.P.(C) NO. 9923 OF 2010 3 with taking over of the physical possession of the building. Subject to this, the loan account will stand regularised. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall continue to effect the regular E.M.Is as originally stipulated, besides clearing the arrears as above. It is further made clear that if the petitioner commits any default in remitting the overdue amounts/arrears, as above, or in the event of committing two consecutive defaults in respect of the regular E.M.Is payable, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire outstanding liability in a lump sum, pursuing such steps, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk W.P.(C) NO. 9923 OF 2010 4