IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29080 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.P.SHEEJA, 36 YEARS, W/O.SANKARANARAYANAN,VALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLOR VAZHI,AMBALLUR,ALAGGAPPA NAGAR P.O, THRISSUR 680 302. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP.BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (SARFAESI ACT), RASMECCC,THRISSUR. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR,CENTRAL OFFICE,MUMBAI- 400 001. R1 BY SRI. N. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 29080 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Various credit facilities by way of financial assistance were granted by the 1st respondent Bank to the petitioner, such as term loan, cash credit facility, and housing loan. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the 1st respondent had initiated steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act). Exts.P1 and P2 are the notices issued under section 13(2) of the Act. It is stated that subsequent to receipt of Exts.P1 and P2 notices, the petitioner remitted the entire amount due in the term loan account and the cash credit facility based on a 'One Time Settlement Scheme' introduced by the 1st respondent Bank. Ext.P5 is the notice issued intimating steps for taking over possession of the secured asset. According to the petitioner, the steps now being pursued under Ext.P5 invoking section 13(4) is unsustainable. It is WPC 29080/2010 2 contended that the amount claimed under Ext.P5 is without taking note of the settlement effected and payment made in the two other loans. Aggrieved by coercive steps being pursued, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. It is conceded that two loans namely, term loan and cash credit facility, were already settled. It is further submitted that the amount outstanding in arrears, as far as the housing loan account is concerned, is around Rs.83,000/-. If the petitioner is willing to make payment of the said amount within a short time, the account can be regularized, is the submission. 3. I am not at all inclined to entertain this writ petition on merits, considering availability of effective statutory remedy provided under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. According to the petitioner, even after filing the writ petition certain amounts were paid to the housing loan account. Petitioner seeks a direction for permitting regularization on the basis that he is not intending to WPC 29080/2010 3 pursue any challenge against the proceedings and that he is not intending to approach the statutory authority with such challenge. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P5 notice, in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the defaulted amounts pertaining to the housing loan account (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in three (3) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15-11-2010 and on or before the 15th day of every succeeding months. 5. If the payment in the loan account is regularized as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment on future instalments in accordance with the original schedule. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps pursuant to the WPC 29080/2010 4 notice already issued. It is also made clear that the above benefit is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.