IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37075 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MOOSA MANSOOR.M, MANGALASERIL HOUSE, SANTHIVAYAL, A.R. NAGAR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 37075 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge is against coercive steps of recovery initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, immovable property which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. On receipt of demand under Section 13(2), the petitioner had approached the Bank seeking permission to regularise the account. But, according to the petitioner, the Bank has not acceded to such request. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the housing loan in question was availed in the year 2008 to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs. However it is conceded that the 2 WP(C) No. 37075/2010 repayment period will expire only in the year 2015. It is further submitted that the amount in default itself will come around Rs.7.25 lakhs, as on today. Since the account is in chronic default the Bank is proposing to proceed with further coercive steps. 3. Considering the fact that the proceedings is only at the stage of issuing notice under Section 13(2) and also considering the fact of availability of effective remedy for the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not proper for this Court to interfere at this stage. However, learned counsel made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation of the account on the basis that the defaulted amount will be paid within a short period in a phased manner. He further undertakes that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. 4. Considering the limited prayer sought for, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the 3 WP(C) No. 37075/2010 petitioner to regularise the account in view of the fact that the repayment period will expire only in the year 2015. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further coercive steps of recovery, provided the petitioner remits the amounts in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.12.2010 and on or before the last day of the three succeeding months. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular instalments due with respect to the months concerned, along with the above said payments. 6. If the payment of the amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is further made clear that on the event of 4 WP(C) No. 37075/2010 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. It is further made clear that the relief granted above is subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc