IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25850 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MARY KRISHANSIA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O THOMAS, BABY COTTAGE, PATTATHANAM,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ,CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER (REGIONAL MANAGER), STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, OVER BRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. R1, R2 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R3 BY ADV.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.25850 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Adv.Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan for the third respondent and learned senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner's husband availed a loan of Rs.3.5 lakhs from the third respondent in 2001. Petitioner stood as guarantor and offered an item of property belonging to her as security. On default in repayment, the bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act and has issued Ext.P1 notice. That is under challenge. Going by Ext.P1, it appears that it is only a notice under Section 13 (2), calling for payment of the amount covered thereby and notifying that further action will follow on default. I find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in Ext.P1 notice. 3. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to request that the petitioner WPC.25850/08 Page numbers may be permitted to pay off the outstandings in instalments. For such purpose, apart from giving up all other contentions, the petitioner also waived her right to challenge the SARFAESI proceedings as per Ext.P1 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is pointed out that the petitioner had married off two daughters and needs some more time to generate the fund for repayment. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs on or before 25.9.2008 and continues to deposit amounts at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakhs per month, payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from October, 2008, the impugned proceedings will be dropped. It is made clear that this judgment does not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the third respondent for any ameliorative reliefs to slash the total outstandings. However, if there is default in remitting any of the amounts as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment, including the direction to consider the request of the WPC.25850/08 Page numbers petitioner for ameliorative benefits, will stand recalled forthwith and the bank will be entitled to proceed with further action without any further notice. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.