IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11585 of 2011(W) -------------------------- CRMP.2236/2010 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANJU NATH, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, RAJIV GIRIYIL, GANDHI NAGAR, THUNDATHIL P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 010. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. SOMAN.T.P., S/O.PAPPAN.T.K, T.C.53/649, NGO QUARTERS, MELARANNUR, KARAMANA, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R1 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R1 SRI.V.R.REKESH FOR R1 ADV.K.K.M.SHERIF, FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 11585/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD.30.6.05. P2. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.27.10.09. P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.19.11.09. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 11585 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The 3rd respondent is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due from him to the 1st respondent. He mortgaged the property in question to the bank, which is now in the possession of the petitioner pursuant to transaction between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for recovery of the loan amount, by sale of the property in question. The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. On 8.4.2011 this court passed the following order: “SC for respondents 1 and 2 is directed to get instructions. Meanwhile the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property, if he is actually residing therein for a period of two months subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (5 lakhs only) in two equal instalments falling due on or before 30.4.11 and on or before 31.5.2011. Post on 2.6.11.” 3. Again, on 2.6.2011, this Court passed an interim order in I.A.No. 8357/2011, which reads as follows: “Petition is stiffly opposed by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 contending that the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. It is also pointed out that in spite of the interim order issued as early as on 8.4.2011, the petitioner had failed to make payment of any amount as stipulated therein. Considering the circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the period. However, as a last chance, time is extended till 20.6.2011, making it clear that no further adjournment will be granted and if the petitioner fails to make payment of Rs.5 lakhs stipulated, before the said date, the writ petition will be dismissed.” Parties admit that the petitioner has paid only ` 3 lakhs as per the w.p.c.11585/11 2 interim order. The petitioner seeks some more time to pay the balance amount as per the interim orders as well as the the balance amount in the loan account. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank. According to him, the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and he is not entitled to any further indulgence from this Court. 4. Having considered the contentions of both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; The petitioner shall pay the balance amount of ` 2 lakhs payable as per the interim order dated 8.4.11 on or before 20.7.2011. The balance amount due under the loan account shall be paid by the petitioner in six monthly instalments starting from 1.9.11. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays ` 2 lakhs and future instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner fails to comply with any of the directions above, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.11585/11 3