IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33080 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUSAN MATHEW,AGED 49 YEARS,W/O.MATHEW DANIEL,PERAPPOOKALA VADAKETHIL,MUDIYOORKONAM P.O PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT STATE BANK BHAVAN,MADAM KAMA ROAD, MUMBAI AND HAVING ITS BRANCH AT VADANAPPILLY BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 614, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER - RCPC) STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BHARATHAKSHEMAM BUILDING, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 005. 3. K.A.PRAVEEN,KATTINGAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMURI P.O, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR 680 571. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 33080/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1298/2009 DATED 17/06/2009 OF PANDALAM SRO. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER DATED 14.11.2011. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 33080 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Respondents 1 and 2 initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for recovery of loan amounts due from the 3rd respondent to respondents 1 and 2, against the property which was purchased by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. She only seeks facility to pay off the amounts in instalments. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the bank. He stated very many reasons as to why this Court should not extend any further indulgence to the petitioner, most of which appear to be justified also. But still I am inclined to take a lenient view to enable the petitioner to pay off the amounts in instalments insofar as she is only a purchaser of the property. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay an amount of ` 6 lakhs by tomorrow, which is the date fixed for conducting sale of the property in question. The petitioner shall pay the balance amounts in six equal monthly instalments starting from 16.1.2012. Every subsequent instalment - : 2 :- shall be paid on the first working day after 15th of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the initial amount of ` 6 lakhs and the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of either the initial amount of ` 6 lakhs or any of the instalments, it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge