IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34882 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJEEV R., THATTARAPPALLIL VEEDU, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REP. BY THE CHEIF MANAGER (ADVANCES), ZONAL OFFICE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PAZHAVEEDU BRANCH, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34882 of 2010-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repaying a vehicle loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. 2. Considering the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, it is evident that, the petitioner has got a remedy to file objections against Ext.P1 notice. There is a further remedy provided to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in case coercive steps under Section 13(4) is initiated. Considering the effective and alternative remedy available, it is not just and proper for this Court to interfere with the proceedings. W.P(C) No.34882 of 2010-I 2 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to invoke any of the statutory remedy. On the other hand, limited prayer of the petitioner is only to permit to regularise the account within a short period. 4. Pursuant to an interim order issued by this Court on 22.11.2010, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the balance outstanding will be more than Rs.2,00,000/-. It is submitted that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated since the petitioner had not cared to make payment of any amount inspite of repeated demands. 5. Considering the factual situation, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account by paying the defaulted amounts within a short time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to keep in abeyance all W.P(C) No.34882 of 2010-I 3 further steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire amount in default (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.12.2010 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 7. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future instalments, in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further 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. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab