IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30107 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M. MAJEED, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT EAST BEVINJE, THEKKIL FERRY P.O., CHENGALA, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KASARAGOD BRANCH, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671121. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFICE, K.V.R. TOWERS, KANNUR, PIN-670 001. BY ADV.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU W.P.(C).NO.30107/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.9.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002. EXT.P2: THE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS AGAINST EXT.P1 NOTICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30107 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of the loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondenst. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks opportunity to regularise the loan account by paying the defaulted amounts and to pay the future instalments as per the original loan agreement. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: If the petitioner pays the amounts stipulated by the bank for regularising the loan account in two equal monthly instalments along with regular instalments payable in accordance with the original loan agreement for December 2011 and W.P.(C)No.30107/11 2 January 2012, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to regularise the loan account and to pay off the future instalments as per the original loan agreement. If the petitioner complies with the above directions and continue to pay the future instalments as per the original loan agreement on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of either the defaulted amounts or any of the future instalments as per the original loan agreement, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.30107/11 3 W.P.(C)No.30107/11 4