IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4279 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED SHAREEF, THE PROPRIETOR, M/S. GOODLUCK APPLIANCES, PAZHAYATTINKUZHY, VADAKKEVILA.P.O., KOLLAM-10 (RESIDING AT BAITHULOOR, PINAIKKAL, THATTAMALA.P.O., KOLLAM-691070) BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.4279 of 2011-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repaying of cash credit facility availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. On invoking Section 14(1), the respondents had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. According to the petitioner, the steps for dispossession was initiated without considering his request to permit payment of the balance amount in instalments. 2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the period of repayment stands expired. After crediting all payments made, including an amount of W.P(C) No.4279 of 2011-H 2 Rs.1 lakh remitted by virtue of an interim order issued by this Court, the balance outstanding is around Rs.2 lakhs, is the submission. 3. In view of the statutory remedy available under Section 17(1), it is not proper and justified for this Court to interfere with the proceedings under Article 226. However, learned counsel, on the basis of an undertaking made to the effect that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also rights if any to invoke statutory remedy, sought for indulgence in permitting payment of the entire balance within a reasonable time, in instalments. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that, the limited relief sought for can be permitted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 4(four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or W.P(C) No.4279 of 2011-H 3 before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.4279 of 2011-H 4