IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAIHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8927 of 2011(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M.R.VINOD, MULAKKAPARAMBIL, THARICHATTUKULAM P.O. BY ADVS. SMT.GISA SUSAN THOMAS SRI.G.ANANTHA NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 504. 2. THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., POOCHAKKAL BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-688 521. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.K. VIJAYAMOHANAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8927 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. On approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, invoking Section 14(1), an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured assets. 2. According to the petitioner coercive steps as stated above were pursued without allowing the petitioner to abide by the settlement arrived at an Adalath conducted by the respondent Bank. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents dispute the settlement and refute the allegation that the respondent Bank had allowed any instalment facility or any re-schedulement of the loan. 2 W.P.(C).No.8927 of 2011 3. Considering the alternative remedy provided under the statute, this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stipulation has already been complied with. 4. On behalf of the petitioner an appeal was made to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy. Even though interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting payment of the amounts within a reasonable time, in view of the relinquishment of challenges made by the petitioner. 5. Under the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, 3 W.P.(C).No.8927 of 2011 subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.6.2011 and on or before 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/