IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18330 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.SHIBU, AGED 41, S/O.MANI,KURULI HOUSE,THRIKKUR VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH,THRISSUR DISTRICT. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 18330 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a housing loan of Rs. 30 lakhs from the respondent Bank in January, 2009; creating security interest over the property in question. But the repayment was not effected on time as scheduled, under which circumstance, there was no other alternative for the Bank, but to declare the account as 'NPA' and to proceed with steps under the SARFAESI Act; which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the default was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen circumstances and that every earnest effort has been taken to see that the entire ‘overdue’ amount is cleared within the shortest possible time, thus seeking for the benefit of regularization of the loan account; simultaneously adding that, the petitioner will continue to effect the EMIs without fail. 3. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that, the course pursued by the Bank is perfectly in tune with the relevant provisions of law and not assailable under any circumstance. It is also stated that, the total outstanding liability under the loan transaction as shown in Ext.P3 is above Rs.32 lakhs and that the defaulted insalments will constitute a total sum of Rs.1,99,163/- with further interest and cost. 2 WP(C) No. 18330/2010 Unless and until the entire ‘overdue’ amount is cleared, the question of regularisation of the loan account is not liable to be entertained, submits the learned counsel. 4. Considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner, so as to have the loan account regularised. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire ‘overdue’ amount by way of 'two' equal monthly insalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of July, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 20th of the succeeding month. Subject to this, the loan account of the petitioner shall stand regularised. This will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to clear the regular EMIs as well. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the ‘overdue’ amount as above, or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc