IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35955 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KANDYAN SUMA, W/O. BABURAJ, AGE 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT AYANIYAT HOUSE, NEAR ERANHOLI PANCHAYAT OFFICE, P.O.ERANHOLI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KANNUR BRANCH REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR BRANCH, R.M. APARTMENTS, SOUTH BAZAR, TALAP, KANNUR-670002, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, COLOMBO COMPLEX, M.M.ALI ROAD, KOZHIKODE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.35955 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.7.5 lakhs from the first respondent bank on 31.3.2005, agreeing to repay the same with interest in monthly installments. However, the petitioner could not effect the repayment on time; under which circumstances the account has declared as NPA and the bank proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said proceedings, stating that the steps taken by the bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act are not correct or sustainable, as the property in question is an 'agricultural land' which stands exempted by virtue of the specific stipulation under Section 31(i) of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the basis of the instructions submits that the dispute raised in the writ petition referring to the actual nature of the land in question is not correct or sustainable and that the property is not an agricultural land liable to be exempted under Section 31 (i). It is also pointed out that action pursued by the bank is very 2 much in conformity with the statutory prescriptions and within the four walls of the law; which hence is stated as not assailable under any circumstances. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 14.12.2009, the coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs within three weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by this Court could not be satisfied in view of some unforeseen circumstances, however, adding that the petitioner has made alternative arrangements to see that the entire liability under the loan transaction is cleared on or before the 31st March, 2010 and further that the contentions raised in the writ petition disputing the sustainability of the proceedings being taken by the bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act will stand withdrawn. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, taking a lenient view of the matter, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability to the bank on or before the 31st March, 2010 as agreed and undertaken through the learned counsel. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire outstanding liability to the bank on or before the 3 31st of March, 2010. Subject to this, all coercive steps stated as being pursued by the bank shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps, if the petitioner turns to be a defaulter and on a such event, the entire amount could be sought to be recovered in a lump sum, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge cms