IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 669 of 2011(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAJENDRAN. V.C, S/O.CHAMI, VELLARAMPARAMBIL VANIYANKULAM. P.O, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 522. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- M/S.CANARA BANK, KULAPPULLYS, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 122. BY ADV. MR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.669 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repayment of a term loan availed by the petitioner for business purpose from the respondent Bank, to the tune of Rs.4.2 lakhs, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Ext.P3 is the notice issued intimating taking over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset, adopting steps as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to the request of the petitioner to permit him to clear off the liability by selling a portion of the property. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court. 3. Heard; Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. It is submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year 2008 and due to consecutive default the account was classified as 'NPA', as on 27.12.2010. Even the amount in arrears pertaining to the defaulted instalments W.P.(C).669/11 -2- will come to more than Rs.2,50,000/-, is the submission. 4. Considering failure on the part of the petitioner to invoke remedies provided under the statute, I am of the view that this court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges provided he is permitted to regularise the account by paying the amounts in default. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. 5. Considering the limited prayer, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account if the amount in arrears is cleared payment within a short period. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property provided the petitioner remits the amounts in default (defaulted 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 before 31.3.2011, along with payment of the regular EMIs due for the respective months. 7. If payment of the amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in W.P.(C).669/11 -3- accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated or any future monthly instalments, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb