IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25588 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- ANIL THOMAS, KULANGARA HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHY PO., EZHINJILAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TTRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER (ADV.) REGION-IV, ZONAL OFFICE KOTTAYAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER (O) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -IV(K) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONA-IV, ZONAL OFFICE KOTTAYAM. 4.THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADV), REGIONAL-IV, ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.25804 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.25588/2008 & 25804/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT In these cases, petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, for realising the dues of the petitioner towards the loan availed of by him for house building purpose and Cash Credit Facility. It is stated that, towards the house building advance availed of as on 31.12.2007, the liability of the petitioner was to the tune of Rs.17,49,577/- In so far as the cash credit facility availed of by the petitioner is concerned, as on 30.11.2007, though his liability was Rs.10,71,566/-, the petitioner submits that later he made some payments and hence the liability has been reduced considerably. WP(c).Nos.25588&25804/08 2 2. It is also seen that the proceedings initiated by the Bank for an order under Section 14 of the Act was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(c).Nos.17672/2008 and 17647/2008. Those writ petitions have been dismissed following the judgment of the Division Bench in WA.No.428/2008 and connected cases. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions as above, none of the contentions raised on merits of the action taken by the Bank under Section 14 of the Act can now be impugned by the petitioner as he cannot be permitted to urge his contentions in piecemeal. 3. Now the counsel for the petitioner seeks an instalment facility to discharge the liability and on that submission I heard the counsel for the Bank also. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by both sides I feel that reasonable instalment facility should be granted to the petitioner so that the coercive action initiated against the property can be avoided and at the same time WP(c).Nos.25588&25804/08 3 the Bank will also be able to recover its dues. 5. Therefore, I dispose of these writ petitions directing that, the petitioner will be permitted to pay the amount due towards both the aforesaid facilities availed of by him, in 5 equal monthly instalments. It is directed that the first instalment shall be paid on or before 30.9.2008 and the subsequent instalment shall be paid on or before the 30th of every succeeding month. 6. Subject to payment as above, further coercive action against the properties will kept in abeyance and in case the petitioner commits default in paying any one of the instalments, the Bank will be free to continue the proceedings without further notice. 7. It is directed that within two weeks from today, the Bank will intimate the petitioner his present liability so that the petitioner can discharge the dues in the manner as indicated above. WP(c).Nos.25588&25804/08 4 Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent Bank for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).Nos.25588&25804/08 5