IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17625 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAILAJA DEVI,W/O.LATE.M.P.SURESH, AGED 49 YEARS,THAMARASSERIL VEEDU,NEELESWARAM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691506. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,CHIEF MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,PULAMON JUNCTION BRANCH,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691506. 2. RESMI.M.S,THAMARASSERI VEEDU, NEELESWARAM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691506. 3. NAGAVINODHAM.B,THAMARASSERI VEEDU, NEELESWARAM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691506. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17625/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 13.1.2011 U/S 13(2) OF THE ACT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.17625 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the co-owner in possession of certain properties which was subjected to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act by the 1st respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 are the daughter and son-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that as a co-owner of the property, the petitioner was entitled to notice regarding proceedings and the petitioner was served with only a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank fiercely opposes the prayers in the writ petition. According to him, the petitioner is guilty of misstatement of facts in the writ petition. He points out that the petitioner has nothing to do with the security interest and respondents 2 and 3 have paid only Rs.2,08,000/= out of a total amount of W.P.(C).NO.17625 OF 2011 : 2 : Rs.25,00,000/= now due and the petitioner has wrongly stated that the amount paid would come to Rs.8,00,000/=. According to him, this court should not exercise the jurisdiction vested in its under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, in such circumstances. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view to enable the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 to pay off the amounts due in instalments. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 shall pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/= within one month from today. The balance amount shall be paid in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2011. Subsequent instalments shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the initial amount and the instalments on 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 or W.P.(C).NO.17625 OF 2011 : 3 : any of the instalments, it would be open to the first respondent to continue the proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/= S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl