IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30880 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, VILAYIL VEEDU, BHAGAVATHYPURAM, ARUVIKKARA, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MINIMOL.S.S., W/O.SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, VILAYIL VEEDU, BHAGAVATHYPURAM, ARUVIKKARA, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN SRI.NELLIMODU UDAYAKUMAR SMT.V.K.AMBIKA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, NEDUMANGAD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI - 682017. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JOYI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 30880 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners had availed a housing loan as well as a mortgage loan from the respondent Bank. Immovable property belonging to the petitioners was mortgaged for securing the said loans. Consequent to default committed in repayment of regular instalments, the respondents initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P1 is the demand notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act. As per the demand there is a total arrears of Rs.32,57,354/-, as on 01.02.2010. According to the petitioners inspite of approaches made offering payment of the defaulted amounts, the Bank is not prepared to restrain from proceeding with further actions. Hence the Writ Petition is filed. 2 WP(C) No. 30880/2010 2. Going by the scheme of the statute it is evident that against notice issued under Section 13 (2) the petitioner has got remedy to approach the respondent Bank by filing appropriate objections/representations. If any such objection/representation is filed, the Bank is at an obligation to consider the same and to take a decision thereon, as per Section 13 (3) of the Act. Since such an effective remedy is available, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition on merits. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioners are not intending to pursue any statutory remedies in challenge of the proceedings now initiated. On the other hand, the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court in permitting regularisation of the loan accounts. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that there is default in payments of instalments from the year 2007 onwards, and therefore the 3 WP(C) No. 30880/2010 accounts are in gross default. Hence the respondents are not favouring in permitting any extended period for payment of the defaulted arrears. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances and submissions on both sides, I am of the opinion that regularisation of the accounts can be permitted, eventhough interference on merits is not at all warranted. The relief in this regard is granted taking note of the fact that the petitioners are relinquishing all their rights to challenge the proceedings initiated. 6. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further steps pursuant to Ext.P1 notice in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the entire defaulted amounts (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 'three' (3) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.10.2010 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months. The petitioner shall also make payment 4 WP(C) No. 30880/2010 of the regular instalments due from the month of October, 2010 onwards, along with the said payments. If payment of the defaulted amount is cleared, then the respondent should permit the petitioner to continue payment of future instalments, in accordance with the original schedule. 7. It is made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the amounts as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notice already issued. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc