IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34968 of 2010(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUBAIR N.P., S/O.LATE PAREED, 44/165-1A,KALLINGAL HOUSE, PUTHIYA ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-17. BY ADVS. SRI.H.HAMZA RAWTHER, SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035. R1 & R2 BY SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 34968 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a loan availed from the respondents, proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. On invoking section 14(1) of the Act, the respondents have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and that court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner had already issued Ext.P4 notice, directing the petitioner to handover possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now being pursued without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to settle the matter, inspite of approaches made by him. It is also complained that the petitioner was not issued with proper details regarding the outstanding arrears. Certain defects with respect to the notices issued was also taken as WP(C) .34968/2010 2 ground for assailing the proceedings now initiated. 3. Considering the effective statutory remedy available under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, I am of the view that the proceedings could not be interfered with in this writ petition at this stage when the CJM Court has already issued proceedings to take over possession of the property. It is settled law by this time, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (8) SCC 110) that interference with proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 need be deprecated. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the loan in question was availed in the year 2004 and the repayment period now stands expired. It is stated that a total amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is due. 4. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. On the other hand, limited prayer is only to permit the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time in a phased manner. WP(C) .34968/2010 3 5. Consequent to an interim order issued by this court on 22.11.2010 the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am inclined to allow the petitioners to pay off the arrears within a reasonable time, in instalments. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance along with interest if any due in 5 equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.1.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already issued, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .34968/2010 4