IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29502 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KOCHU RANI JOSE, CHITHRALAYAM, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT. M.JAYASREE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695 001. 2. DR.SUNITHA WILFRED, CELL WILL, SEWEGE FARM ROAD, CHERIYATHOOR, BHEEMAPALLY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P. KURUP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 29502/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MC NO.195/2011 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BANK BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER SISTER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. P4: COPY OF THE CMP NO.3081/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29502 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the 1st respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from the 2nd respondent, for repayment of which, the petitioner was a surety. According to the petitioner, although the petitioner was a surety for one loan taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner did not stand as as surety for the loan which is the subject matter of this writ petition. The petitioner would allege that the bank has fabricated documents to make the petitioner liable for the amounts due from the 2nd respondent under the particular loan. However, the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the amounts demanded in instalments subject to the contention of the petitioner to be raised before the appropriate forum. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. 3. However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; The petitioner shall pay the balance amounts due in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.12.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding w.p.c.29502/11 - : 2 :- month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the 1st respondent to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. I make it clear that the payment would be subject to the contention of the petitioner to be raised before the appropriate forum. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge