IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2011/10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9196 of 2011 (Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- E.K. SUBRAMANIYAN, S/O. KUNJAMAN, ERUMAKKADAN, KUTTANALLUR POST THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, KUNDUKKAVU BHAGAVATHY, TEMPLE SHOPPING COMPLEX, ALAGAPPA NAGAR BRANCH, THRISSUR. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (ASST. MANAGER), STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMCC, THRISSUR. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9196 of 2011 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FROM 24.9.2005 TO 27.10.2009 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SECTION 13(4) NOTICE DTD.10.8.2010 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.10.9.2010 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CRL.M.P. NO.9632/2010 DTD.17.10.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.9196 of 2011-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a cash credit facility as well as a term loan from the 1st respondent Bank during the year 2007, for starting an Ayurvedic treatment unit. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loans, proceedings was initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against by invoking Section 14(1) of the Act. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. 2. According to the petitioner the default in repayment occurred only because there was considerable delay in getting the required licences for starting the unit in question. It is submitted that the coercive steps of recovery are being proceeded without considering the request made by the petitioner to permit payment of the amounts outstanding, in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. W.P(C) No.9196 of 2011-Y : 2 : 3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, the loans in question were availed to the tune of Rs.19.50 lakhs and at present there is an outstanding liability of more than Rs.24 lakhs. It is further submitted that dispossession pursuant to the proceedings under Section 14(1) was kept in abeyance on the basis of a promise made by the petitioner to make payment of considerable amounts. But he had failed in remitting any amount as promised, till date. 4. Considering the remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the Act, this Court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a limited prayer to permit him to wipe off the entire liability within a short period, on the basis of an undertaking that he is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited request, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a short period. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing W.P(C) No.9196 of 2011-Y : 3 : the respondents to restrain dispossession and sale of the property in question, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.4.2011 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 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 the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab