IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28030 of 2010(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- NANDANA M.V., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.DHARMARAJAN, THALAPILLY HOUSE, CHERUVATHANY, ANJUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT MAMPAT HOUSE, ANDATHODE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT SRI.M.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICE CSB BHAVAN, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020. 2. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER-680 503. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, CSB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 28030 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assistance and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Invoking Section 14 (1) of the Act, the respondents have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The immovable property which is the secured asset has already been taken over possession by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, by that Court. At the stage when the Bank was taking steps to conduct sale of the property, this Writ Petition was filed. 2. According to the petitioner, she was residing in the property along with her husband and school going daughters and the forcible eviction had prevented even 2 WP(C) No. 28030/2010 the children from going to school, as their books and uniforms are in the house which was locked by the respondents. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank disputed the above contentions stating that the residential house situated in the property was remaining unoccupied and that the petitioner was not residing in that house. 3. It is evident that the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act has reached a stage where the Bank had already taken over the possession of the secured assets. There is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner had raised any valid or tenable contentions against the proceedings either by objecting the demand made or by invoking the statutory remedy available against the coercive steps proceeded under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Having not chosen to avail the statutory remedies, the petitioner could not be heard with respect to any challenge against the proceedings in this Writ Petition. 3 WP(C) No. 28030/2010 4. However learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to relinquish all challenges against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, provided she may be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time and further to permit occupation of the residential house. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 09.09.2010, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that the balance outstanding will be still around Rs.4 lakhs. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not at all warranted, I am of the opinion that indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in reasonable instalments. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further proceedings for sale of the property in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due 4 WP(C) No. 28030/2010 on or before 15.11.2010 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. On remittance of the instalments falling due on 15.11.2010 the respondents shall permit the petitioner to occupy the building situated within the property for the sole purpose of residence of her family. It is made clear that such occupation will be subject to rights of the respondents to have legal possession of the property and such permission for occupation will not create any right on the petitioner which will hinder the proceedings initiated by the Bank in any manner. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments, the respondents can evict the petitioner or anybody else occupying the house without recourse to any legal proceedings, if necessary with the assistance of the police having jurisdiction in the area in question, and in such case the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for sale of the property. It is 5 WP(C) No. 28030/2010 also made clear that the relief granted above is subject to the condition that the petitioner will be precluded from approaching this Court or any other Forum challenging any further proceedings in this regard, in future. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc