IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6686 of 2011(I) -------------------------------- CMP.2572/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SANUMON.K.B., SAJU BHAVAN, 126 (399), THIRUPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KARUNAKARAN NADAR, SAJU BHAVAN, 126(399), THIRUPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. AIG HOME FINANCE LTD., KRISHNA BUILDINGS, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS COLLECTION OFFICER-695 014. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, AIG HOME FINANCE LTD., KRISHNA BUILDINGS, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6686 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners jointly availed a housing loan from the respondent Bank during the year 2005, to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/-. Consequent to default committed in repayment, proceedings were initiated against the immovable property, which is a secured assets, by invoking provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P4 order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, will indicate that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioners, they were regularly remitting the instalments upto the year 2009, and the default was committed only due to unforeseen circumstance. It is contended that, the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to their request for permitting 2 W.P.(C).No.6686 of 2011 regularisation of the loan account. Hence, the petitioners seek interference of this Court. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that, the loan account is in chronic default and there is a total outstanding of more than Rs.4,97,000/-. Even the amount defaulted payment will come to more than Rs.1.22 lakhs, is the submission. 4. Considering availability of the effective statutory remedy, it is not proper and justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings, especially in view of dictum laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in a decision reported in United Bank of India V. Sathyawati Tondon & Ors. (2010(8) SCC 110). 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation of the loan account, on the promise that the amounts in default will be paid within a short time. The above request is made on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings 3 W.P.(C).No.6686 of 2011 and that they are relinquishing rights if any available, to invoke statutory remedy. 6. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the opinion that, even though interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the account, considering relinquishment of the challenges and also considering the fact that the repayment period is yet to expire. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the amounts overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 8. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioners 4 W.P.(C).No.6686 of 2011 to make payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/