IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1092 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SEALAND TRANSPORT, SURABHI BUILDINGS, THAIKKATTUKARA, N.H.HIGHWAY, MUTTOM, ALUVA-683 106, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR-SRI.UMESH PRABHU. 2. UMESH PRABHU, 12/42, MANTHRA ROAD, PALLAM LANE, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI. 3. DWARAKANATH PRABHU, 12/42, MANTHRA ROAD, PALLAM LANE, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF MYSORE, P.B.NO.159, SURAJ COMPLEX, D.NO.8/1731A, MANTHRA ROAD, A.M.CROSS ROAD, KOOVAPADAM, KOCHI-682 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOOVAPADAM, KOCHI. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF MYSORE, KOOVAPADAM, KOCHI - 682 002. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1092 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.27.9.2010 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.29.11.2010 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.1.1.2011 EXT.P4: COPYO F THE ORDER DTD.2.1.2011 IN CRL.M.P.NO.7032/2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1092 of 2011-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge is against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a business loan availed by the petitioners from the respondent Bank, immovable properties which are the secured assets were proceeded against. On the basis of a petition filed by the respondents before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, under Section 14(1), Ext.P4 order was issued appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property. According to the petitioners the hasty steps were taken without considering their request for granting time to pay off the liability. 2. Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under the statute and also considering the directions contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble W.P(C) No.1092 of 2011-J 2 Supreme Court in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110), it may not be justifiable on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, dispossession was stayed through an interim order issued on 12.1.2011, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is reported that the amount has already been remitted. 3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, the balance outstanding was around Rs.16.50 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay off the liability within a reasonable time. It is undertaken on behalf of them that they are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that there is no intention to pursue any statutory remedy. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting payment of the entire balance amount in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. W.P(C) No.1092 of 2011-J 3 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab