IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15616 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------- K.M.MUHAIS, PROPRIETOR, K.M.RUBBER TRADERS, KARIMALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KANGAZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.L.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S) :- --------------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANGAZHA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 691 001. ADV.SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC FOR S.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No.15616 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the notice dated 21/03/2011 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the respondent bank to the petitioner. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15616 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June 2011 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceeding initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002, consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a credit facility availed from the respondent Bank. Through Ext.P1, the petitioner was intimated about the steps taken as contemplated under Sec.13(4) of the Act, against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. 2. According to the petitioner, the failure in effecting regular repayment was only due to unforeseen set backs met with in the business activities. It is contended that the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding the request made for permitting regularisation of the cash credit facility on the basis of an offer made to make payment of the amounts remaining overdue within a reasonable time. W.P.(C)No.15616 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Heard; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the cash credit facility is in question was sanctioned for a period of one year and it stands expired. It is submitted that the petitioner had remitted only a meagre amount after availing the facility and the total balance outstanding will be around `8,00,000/-, during the year 2007. Since the period of the facility stands expired the respondent Bank is not amenable for renewal of the facility, especially because of the fact that the business activity is not running on a regular basis. 4. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the entire amounts due in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. Such a request is made on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceeding and also relinquishing right to invoke statutory remedy, if any available. 5. Even though interference on merits is not called for, I am of the view that petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the entire liability in instalment within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing W.P.(C)No.15616 of 2011 -: 3 :- the respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts along with interest and expenses if any due, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.7.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalment as stipulated above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the notices already issued, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Jvt