IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2364 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SONIA SIBICHAN, KUDAKKACHIRA, THIRUVANKULAM P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, IRUMPANAM, THRIPPUNITHURA-682 309. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.S.P.KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2364 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by the coercive steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) against the immovable property, which is the secured asset with respect to a housing loan as well as a business loan availed from the respondent Bank. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the respondent initiated proceedings against the property and Ext.P6 notice was issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest and Enforcement Rules 2002 intimating steps as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner, she was ready and willing to pay off the entire liability provided the respondents consider waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent. Grievance of the petitioner is that eventhough Ext.P7 representation was submitted with such a request, the same was not considered and at the same time coercive steps were initiated. W.P.(C).2364/11 -2- 3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that in the year 2003 the petitioner had availed a housing loan to the tune of Rs.2.50 lakhs and a business loan to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. The period of repayment with respect to the business loan now stands expired and there is considerable arrears in both the loan accounts. It is further submitted that waiver sought for in Ext.P7 is a matter which need be considered by the authorities of the Bank, depending on their policy decisions. 4. Considering the effective alternative remedy available, I am of the view that interference against the proceedings in this writ petition is not at all justified. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a limited prayer for a direction to consider Ext.P7 by the authority concerned, and till then to keep in abeyance further coercive steps. He further makes an offer for payment of a portion of the amount, pending consideration of the matter. 5. Considering the above said facts and circumstances I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not possible, indulgence can be shown in directing the respondent to consider the request for 'One Time Settlement', claimed through Ext.P7, subject to condition for payment of a portion of the liability. W.P.(C).2364/11 -3- 6. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and take a decision on Ext.P7 representation, provided the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 28.2.2011. The request for waiver of amounts to the possible extent may be considered and a decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner as early as possible, if necessary, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 7. Needless to say that further steps can be pursued only after taking a decision as directed above and intimating the same to the petitioner, provided the petitioner complies with the condition stipulated as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb