IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 532 of 2009(L) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.RAMADASAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, MANALERY HOUSE, AYANCHERY P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 541. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHERANDATHUMBRANCH, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.532 OF 2009 & I.A.No.2688 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. The petitioner availed a housing loan from the first respondent. He challenged the securitisation proceedings and sought an interim order. Since the petitioner was not keen, for reasons which were best to his interest, to contest on merits and was also not particular to prosecute proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, I had granted an interim order of stay on 6.1.2009, on condition of remittance of Rs.1,00,000/- within three weeks therefrom. The petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.30,000/- and has filed the captioned I.A. seeking enlargement of time by six months. 3. After hearing counsel for parties, it is noticed that there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned WPC.532/09 Page numbers proceedings. Learned counsel for the bank is right in saying that after giving due credit to the amount of Rs.30,000/- already paid following the interim order, if the petitioner remits a further amount of Rs.65,000/-, he could be treated as having levelled the transaction as on 31.1.2009. This means that if the petitioner continues to pay the EMIs from February, 2009, he should be able to enjoy the benefit of the loan. But the fact remains that the petitioner had not complied with the interim order in relation to the remittances to be made by him. The plea for a further time frame of six months is just not permissible. Not only that, the classification or de- classification as regards NPA status need necessarily to be taken care of within the current financial year. 4. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is directed that if the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.65,000/- on or before 10.3.2009 and continues to remit the EMIs due from February, 2009 promptly, ie., from February, 2009 itself, the impugned distress action will be deferred and dropped ultimately, facilitating him regularise WPC.532/09 Page numbers the transaction. However, if there is default in remitting any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment will stand recalled automatically and distress action will follow. The writ petition and the I.A. are ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.24/2.