IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28916 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- JOSE PAUL,AGED 46 YEARS S/O.PAUL A.R, ALAPPAT HOUSE PAZHUVIL PO, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT, 2002, FEDERAL BANK LIMITED ALWAYE. 2. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED REP BY BRANCH MANAGER, IRINJALAKUDA. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) SRI.P.R.MILTON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that payment in the loan account has already been settled and that the petitioner is not intending to pursue this writ petition any further. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 19/11/2010 SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28916 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is challenged in this writ petition. The loan in question was availed by the petitioner during the year 1998, which is a cash credit facility. On failure to make prompt repayments, the 2nd respondent Bank filed civil suit and obtained decree. Execution petition is pending disposal. Meanwhile the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against by invoking Section 13 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were initiated without considering his request for granting time to pay off the liability. Hence interference of this court is invited. 2. Considering availability of effective alternative remedy, it may not be proper for this court to interfere. However, it is noticed that the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.75,000/-, pursuant to an interim order issued by this court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, the balance outstanding will be around Rs.3,60,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an W.P.(C).28916/10 -2- appeal to this court to permit payment of the entire balance within a reasonable time in instalments, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and that he is relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 4. Considering the limited request, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not possible, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated under the SARFAESI Act, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be at liberty 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