IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37295 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PRASOBHINI. K., AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.KARTHIKEYAN, KALIYILAKAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KUTTIKADU P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER KOLLAM DIST. CO-OP. BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN- 691 001. 2. THE MANAGER KOLLAM DIST. CO-OP. BANK, KADAKKAL BRANCH, KADAKKAL POST, KOLLAM, PIN- 691 536. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37295 of 2010-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner had failed to make repayment of amounts availed from the respondent Bank under a 'cash credit facility', which was secured through mortgage of immovable property. The respondent Bank had proceeded against the property and through Ext.P3 notice possession was taken over as contemplated under Section 13(4). 2. According to the petitioner the coercive steps were pursued without considering the request made to permit payment of the amounts in a phased manner. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to permit payment of the amount within a reasonable time in instalments. W.P(C) No.37295 of 2010-J 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner has not cared to make payment, inspite of repeated demands. Therefore, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated and the steps taken were purely legal and valid, is the contention. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to avail any remedy provided under the statute, interference by this Court in exercise of Article 226 is not at all justified. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedy and that she is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, limited prayer is only to permit the petitioner to pay off the liability in a phased manner within a short period. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in a phased manner. W.P(C) No.37295 of 2010-J 3 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any accruing, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.1.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab