IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21989 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MR. SUNIL K.MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. KOCHU KUNJU MATHAI, MANGALATHU PUTHENPURA, KAKKAD.P.O.-686 664, PIRAVAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA MUVATTUPUZHA-01. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 035. 3. CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 21989 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, seeking to realise the amount stated as due under a loan transaction. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, it was an 'agricultural loan' and hence the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of waiver under some Debt Relief Scheme. There is another contention for the petitioner that the property is an agricultural land hence that no proceedings will lie by virtue of the exclusion under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that, two loans were availed by the petitioner; the first one, an agricultural loan to an extent of Rs.10 lakhs for a period of three years which was granted on 17.04.2007 and that a total sum of about Rs.7,20,000/- is due as outstanding. The second one is a 'cash credit facility' to an equal amount of Rs.10 lakhs and that the outstanding liability is nearly Rs.12.95 lakhs. It is stated that there was no operation in the above two accounts for quite a long time and both the accounts were declared as 'NPA' and the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which is perfectly in tune with the statutory requirements and hence beyond challenge. The 2 WP(C) No. 21989/2010 learned counsel for the Bank also submits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the eligibility to have the petitioner to have waiver under the Debt Relief Scheme is quite wrong and misconceived. It is stated that the loan was availed by the petitioner on 17.04.2007, whereas the persons eligible to have the benefit of the scheme are only in respect of the loans provided on or before 31.03.2007. This being the position, the petitioner stands outside the purview of the Scheme. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the property is an 'agricultural land', it is strongly rebutted from the part of the respondent Bank. This Court finds that this may require a 'fact adjudication' before the appropriate forum to ascertain the correct position. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy under the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, the recovery proceedings now stated as being pursued by the respondents shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc