IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29334 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, AIKKANALIL HOUSE, KARIKKOD PO, KADUTHURUTHY-VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE SECURITIZATION & RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT C0-OPERATIVE BANK, PERUVA BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PERUVA, PERUVA PO, KADUTHURUTHY-VIA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 610. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC, KOTTAYAM DIST.CO-OP.BANK R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 29334 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Pursuant to steps initiated under section 13(4) of the Act, immovable property belonging to the petitioner, which is secured asset in the loan transaction, was put to auction sale through Ext.P6 notice. It is conceded by both sides that the sale proclaimed on 25- 7-2010 was not materialized. The loan in question was availed as early as in 1992 and the petitioner alleges that there was failure on the part of the respondents in initiating recovery steps within any reasonable time. Therefore,it is contended that the proceedings now initiated is barred by limitation. 2. It is noticed that, with respect to proceedings W.P.(C) No. 29334/2010 2 initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has not chosen to avail any of the remedies provided under the Statute. At this stage, this court may not be justified in interfering with the proceedings on the basis of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is also noticed that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.(C) No.4255 fo 2010 and the same was dismissed for default on 25-2-2010. 3. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an appeal to this Court for permitting payment of the entire balance amount in a phased manner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, there is a total outstanding of Rs.5,35,841/-, as on 30-7-20010. Since the petitioner committed consecutive defaults in discharging the liability for the last so many years, the respondent bank is not favouring in permitting any extended period for payment of the liability. 4. Having considered facts and circumstances of the W.P.(C) No. 29334/2010 3 case, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a short time. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated pursuant to the notice already issued, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in the loan account in six (6) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31st October, 2010 and on or before the last day of every succeeding month. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notice already issued. It is made clear that the relief granted as above is subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. 7. It is also made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to approach respondents 1 and 2 seeking waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent. W.P.(C) No. 29334/2010 4 It is further made clear that disposal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of respondents considering any such waiver on the request of the petitioner. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.