IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25991 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.L.BABU, S/O.V.O.LOUISE, AGED 44 YEARS, VETTATH HOUSE, KANNARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK, SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-RASMECCC), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 2ND FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-1, PIN-680 001. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, EAST FORT BRANCH, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25991 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Aggrieved by steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) the petitioner is approaching this court. Consequent to default committed in repayment of two housing loans availed by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent, immovable properties which are secured assets has been proceeded against. According to the petitioner, after receipt of the notice issued under Section 13(2), the petitioner had effected substantial payments. When the request for providing installment facility was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner had already approached this court on an earlier occasion by filing WP(C).No.27520/2009. It is stated that the said case was withdrawn since the respondent Bank had not permitted to clear payment of the arrears. However, there occurred subsequent defaults and the property in question was put to sale as per Ext.P4 notice. This court, through an interim order dt.17.8.2010, had W.P.(C).25991/10-Y -2- restrained finalisation of the sale. But it is conceded that no sale has taken place on the date on which it was proclaimed under Ext.P4 notice. 2. In the statement filed by counsel appearing for the respondents it is mentioned that, both the accounts are remaining in chronic default and the loans were recalled w:e:f: 20.11.2008. The balance outstanding at present is around Rs.6.5 lakhs, is the contention. 3. In view of the alternate remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act which is efficacious, I do not find any reason for considering the contentions raised in this writ petition, which does not deserve merit. The petitioner had not chosen to avail the appellate remedy provided under Section 17(1). Further, he had withdrawn another writ petition filed earlier. 4. However, when confronted with the above situations, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit payment of the entire balance in installments within a reasonable time. It is submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not proposing to invoke any of the statutory remedies available under the statute. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am W.P.(C).25991/10-Y -3- of the opinion that, even though interference on merits is not at all desirable, indulgence can be shown to the extent of permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time, in installments. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further steps for sale of the secured assets in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in 8 (eight) equal monthly installments, falling due on or before 25.10.2010 and on or before the 25th day of the succeeding months. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the installments the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb