IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1326 of 2011(M) ------------------------- CMP.3865/2010 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.UNNIKRISHNA KURUP, PLAVILA VEEDU, KUDAVOOR, NJARAYILKONAM, MADAVOOR.P.O., PALLIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SRI.K.M.ALEXANDER SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SYNDICATE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ATTINGAL BRANCH, MAIN ROAD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (ASST.GENERAL MANAGER), THE SYNDICATE BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1326 of 2011-M ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner during the year 2006, proceedings against the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The respondent Bank had invoked Section 14(1) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached seeking assistance to take over possession of the property. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to the request made by him to permit to regularise the account. 2. Considering availability of effective alternative remedy, this Court was not justified in interdicting with the proceedings, at this stage. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit W.P(C) No.1326 of 2011-M 2 regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer that the amount in default will be paid within a short time. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner had committed consecutive defaults after availing the loan, and that the amount outstanding overdue for payment itself will come more than Rs.2.22 lakhs. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also relinquishing rights to invoke statutory remedy, I am of the view that regularisation can be permitted, subject to liberty reserved to the Bank to proceed with further steps in case of default. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amount in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or W.P(C) No.1326 of 2011-M 3 before 31.3.2011, along with payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 5. If payments of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab