IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35068 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- J.SREEDEVI AMMA, SUMA GEETA, NO.218, KAVANADU NAGAR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER OFFICER, *ANDHRA BANK, S K P BUILDING FIRST FLOOR, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. *ANDHRA BANK IS INCLUDED IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DTD. 24/11/2010 IN I.A.NO.16401/2010. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35068 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 notice of sale proclamation published by the respondent. Consequent to failure on the part of the petitioner in repaying loan availed from the respondent bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Through Ext.P1, the respondent had taken over possession of the property symbolically, and it was proclaimed for sale by publishing Ext.P2 notice. 2. According to the petitioner, the property in question is the residential house wherein she is residing with family and if the same is sold in auction the petitioner and her family will be put to street. It is W.P.(C).35068/10-G -2- stated that inspite of approaches made by the petitioner seeking time for payment of the amount outstanding, the bank is now proceeding with coercive steps. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner has not challenged the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act by resorting to statutory remedies, at any stage during when steps under Section 13(2) and 13(4) were taken. As such it is not proper for this court to interfere with the proceedings for sale, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the writ petition came up for consideration on 23.11.2010, this court directed the sale to be deferred subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.60,000/- on or before 22.11.2010. It is reported that the petitioner had complied with the condition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that she is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, W.P.(C).35068/10-G -3- limited prayer is to permit the petitioner to pay off the liability in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 5. Heard counsel appearing for respondent Bank. It is stated that the loan account is in chronic default and there is an outstanding balance of about 4.93 lakhs, as on 1.12.2010. Since the proceedings is at its fag end, the bank is not favouring for providing installment facility to the petitioner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in installments, within a reasonable time. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further coercive steps for sale of the property or for dispossession of the petitioner, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance amount outstanding in the loan account along with interest and expenses if any accruing, in W.P.(C).35068/10-G -4- 6 (six) equal monthly installments falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the installments as stipulated above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps for sale or dispossession of the petitioner from the property. It is also made clear that 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. okb