IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15713 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYESH V.JOSEPH, AGED 32, S/O. P.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT MOHANAVILASAM BUNGALOW, KANJIRAMKULAM, KAZHIVOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH ROY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15713 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Kanjiramkulam branch of the Bank in the year 2000 creating security interest over the property in question, but the liability could not be satisfied by remitting the due instalments on time; under which circumstance, it is stated that the Bank is proceeding with further steps under the SARFAESI Act after declaring the account as NPA; which forms the subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a plumber. He lost his job in the Gulf and had to return to Kerala. It is stated that the petitioner is taking every earnest effort to see that the entire balance is cleared at the earliest simultaneously; adding that the default was never willful but because of some unforeseen circumstances. 3. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and the outstanding liability was nearly 2.45 lakhs as on 27.10.2007, as borne by Ext.P2. This by itself shows that the petitioner was not at all anxious in having the liability cleared on time and that the alleged loss of employment and return to the home state in 2010 is a not a ground to challenge the steps taken by the respondent in accordance with 2 WP(C) No. 15713/2010 law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief now pressed before this Court is that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the liability by way of reasonable instalments, stating that the petitioner does not intend to proceed with the challenge against the steps being taken under SAFAESI Act in this Writ Petition or by resorting to the statutory remedy by approaching the DRT. 5. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of ‘six’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 15th of June, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if any default is made by the petitioner as above, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc