IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34579 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUKKANNAM MOHAMMED, KEERANGATTUTHODIKA HOUSE, MORAYOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) SRI.P.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., MONGAM BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MONGAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673642. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR-680001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 34579 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank, steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. The Writ Petition was filed at a stage when notice under Section 13(2) issued. According to the petitioner he had remitted considerable amounts and approached the Bank seeking time for settlement of the balance, but coercive steps were threatened without considering such requests. Hence the petitioner is seeking interference of this Court. 2. However, it is submitted that the respondent Bank had already approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court invoking Section 14(1) and Advocate 2 WP(C) No. 34579/2010 Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that the loan account is in chronic default and the arrears outstanding is around Rs.5.14 lakhs. 3. Considering the effective alternate remedy available under the statute, I am of the opinion that it is not proper and justified on the part of this Court to interfere with the proceedings since the petitioner has not chosen to avail any of such remedies. However, as a gesture of indulgence, this Court had stayed dispossession of the petitioner from the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1 lakh. It is reported that the stipulation has already been complied with. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the balance outstanding in a phased manner, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against proceedings and that he is not intending 3 WP(C) No. 34579/2010 to pursue any of the statutory remedies. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the view that considering the facts and circumstances the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the balance outstanding in instalments within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.01.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is also made clear that the relief granted above is subject to the condition that the 4 WP(C) No. 34579/2010 petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc