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. 36190 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED ASLAM,S/O.ABOOBACKER, KOOLIKULANGARA HOUSE, PO ERAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AIG HOME FINANCE INDIA LTD(FORMERLY WEIZMAN HOMES LTD) MNS AVENUE,OPP.YMCA,NEAR 4TH RAILWAY GATE,KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,PIN 673 001. ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.36190 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a housing loan availed from the respondent, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached invoking Section 14(1) and that Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P3 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. According to the petitioner coercive steps were pursued without considering his request to allow time to pay off the liability in instalments. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to avail any of the statutory remedies available under the statute, at the stage when steps were taken as W.P(C) No.36190 of 2010-W 2 provided under Section 13(2) and 13(4), it is not proper for this Court to entertain this writ petition to interdict with the proceedings in any manner. This is especially in view of the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110). 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to invoke any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, limited prayer is to permit the petitioner to pay off the entire arrears within a reasonable time, in instalments. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank on the basis of instructions submitted that the total outstanding is more than Rs.8.97 lakhs and that the loan account is in chronic default. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances and the contentions raised on both sides, I am of the view that some indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay W.P(C) No.36190 of 2010-W 3 off the liability in instalments within a reasonable time. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent to keep in abeyance further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest if any due, in 7 (seven) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the orders already issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab //True Copy//