IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21201 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------- (CMP.2198/2010 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHAJI,S/O.LATE P.K.PALANI, AGED 46 YEARS, PARAVELI VELI, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ALAPPUZHA-687001. 2. THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHERTHALA BRANCH REP.BY ITS MANAGER PIN-688524. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 21201 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner had availed a cash credit facility from the respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, during the year 2004. An item of immovable property having an extent of 1.1 acres along with two residential buildings was offered as security for the loan. Consequent to default committed in repayment in the loan account, the respondents proceeded with steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court was approached invoking Section 14 (1) and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by that Court to take over possession of the property in question. 2. According to the petitioner, he had approached the second respondent seeking permission to dispose of any one of the secured assets or a portion thereof for 2 WP(C) No. 21201/2010 raising funds to clear the arrears. He also made request for converting the arrears as a term loan so that the liability can be cleared by paying the amounts in instalments. According to the petitioner such requests were not considered and coercive steps were proceeded. Hence this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Going by the scheme of statute, the borrowers as well as the sureties are provided with statutory remedies at different stages of the proceedings. It is evident that the petitioner had not chosen to avail any of the remedies either at the stage of notice under Section 13 (2) or at the stage when possession was taken over under Section 13 (4). Now the proceedings is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 (1). Any interference with the proceedings at this stage in a Writ Petition under Article 226, by passing such remedies, is not at all desirable. No patent illegality or irregularity has been pointed out with respect to the proceedings, warranting interference. 3 WP(C) No. 21201/2010 4. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is mentioned that the period of the cash credit facility had expired as early as on 30.09.2007, and that the account is remaining categorized as ‘NPA’. It is submitted that the proposal for releasing any one of the properties is not feasible since the secured assets belong to different persons. It is further stated that the petitioner has never approached the Bank seeking for conversion of the facility into a term loan or seeking instalment facility to clear off the outstanding amounts. 5. It is noticed that when the Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court had granted interim stay against dispossession subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The said amount was already paid in compliance with the stipulations. As per the statement of the respondents, the balance outstanding, after crediting all such payments, is Rs.6,62,194/-. I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to approach the 4 WP(C) No. 21201/2010 respondents seeking appropriate remedy either for instalment payment or for converting the facility as a term loan to facilitate payment of the balance amounts in instalments. If any such approach is made, it is for the respondents to consider and take appropriate decision thereof. 6. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the Bank seeking the above reliefs and in order to facilitate Bank to take a decision thereon, further steps for dispossession of the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. Needless to say that the respondent Bank should intimate the petitioner about the decision in this regard, within the said period of one month, if any proper representation in this regard is received within a period of two weeks from today. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc