IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29241 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JESSY JOHNY, WIFE OF JOHNY EMMANUEL, VIII/A-2, HEERA PARK, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHAKAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, SRI.K.S.ROCKEY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, PIONEER TOWER, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI. R1 BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29241 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repayment of a Housing Loan availed by the petitioner, the respondents initiated proceedings against the secured assets, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The loan in question was availed in the year 2004 for the purchase of a flat, to the tune of Rs. 9 lakhs. According to the petitioner, repayment of installments were defaulted due to unforeseen financial stringencies. However, it is stated that when coercive steps were initiated, the petitioner had approached the respondents on various occasions offering to settle payment of the amount within a reasonable time. But the Bank failed to intimate the minimum amount due W.P.(C).29241/10- -2- and therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 request. Since coercive steps were threatened without issuing any reply, this writ petition is filed. 2. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the basis of instructions received, made strong refute against the allegations. It is submitted that various notices as contemplated under Section 13(2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act has already been issued to the petitioner. Even the proposal for sale of the property was intimated as early as on 23.7.2010. It is also mentioned that pursuant to request made, the petitioner was intimated that the total outstanding in the loan account is Rs.10,69,295/-. But still the petitioner had not effected any substantial payments. 3. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, she is at liberty to invoke effective alternate remedies available under that statute. Since averments in the writ petition stand refuted by the respondents, I am not at all inclined to entertain this writ W.P.(C).29241/10- -3- petition on merits. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to wipe off the entire liability within three months. Hence indulgence was sought for to restrain the respondents from taking coercive steps till such time. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the rival submissions, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a short period. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further coercive steps pursuant to the notices issued, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in 3 (three) equal monthly installments, falling due on or before 10.11.2010 and on or before the 10th day of two succeeding months. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the installments, the respondents will be at liberty W.P.(C).29241/10- -4- to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other Forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb