IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16015 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.OMANA AMMA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.P.NARAYANAN, UNNIYEZHATHU HOUSE, ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, P.B.NO.32, NELSON BUILDING, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16015 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The immovable property, which is the secured asset, was taken over possession by resorting to steps contemplated under Section 13(4), on publishing Ext.P3 notice, as required under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to the request made by her for permitting payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that, the loan in question was availed in the year 2008, to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and the petitioner had 2 W.P.(C).No.16015 of 2011 committed serious defaults in effecting regular repayment. It is submitted that the balance outstanding as on today is more than Rs.2,50,000/-. 4. Considering the alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, it may not be proper on the part of this Court to interfere with. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the balance outstanding in instalments, within a reasonable time, on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that she is not intending to pursue statutory remedy, if any available. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not called for, I am of the view that, the petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the liability by paying the balance amount in instalments, within a reasonable time, in view of the relinquishments made as above. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further 3 W.P.(C).No.16015 of 2011 coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) 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 instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/