IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27667 of 2011(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- XAVIOUR P., S/O. LATE PAPPACHAN, MANKUZHY HOUSE, AYYAMPILLY P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SMT.MOLY.E.V. RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------ 1. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD., XL/4118, FLOWER JUNCTION, FIRST FLOOR, T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 35, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 2. S.SUNNY, S/O. S.SATHYANESAN, 30/1918-B, MAMBARA ROAD, CHALIKAVATTOM, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM- 18. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SC, TAMILNADU MERCNTILE BANK LTD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 27667 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DTD.26.10.09 ISSUED UNDER SEC.13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMPILATION OF RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT EFFECTED IN TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.11.11.2010 IN SA 578/2009. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 22/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE CIRCULATED IN PAMPHLETS. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 25/11/11 SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/11/11 IN IA 2567/2011 FILED IN SA 578/2009. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF RS.2 LAKH ON 30/11/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 27667 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The 1st respondent initiated proceedings for recovery of loan amounts due from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is one of the guarantors for due repayment of loan amount by the 2nd respondent. Now proceedings have been initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for recovery of the amounts due. The petitioner has filed S.A.No.578/2009 challenging the proceedings. The petitioner moved for interim orders in that securitization application. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has passed Ext.P7 interim order, by which, certain conditions have been imposed. The petitioner is unable to comply with the conditions. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue an order of writ of mandamus directing the respondent (sic) keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1. b) To allow the petitioner to remit the entire amount due in the account in reasonable instalments without prejudice to his right to recover the same from 2nd respondent. c) To grant all possible concessions and OTS facility to settle the remaining liability in certain reasonable instalments, if requested.” 2. This is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted instalment facility to pay off the amounts. This is also w.p.c.27667/11 - : 2 :- opposed by the learned counsel for the bank, who submits that the tactics of the petitioner is only a ruse to protract recovery further. 3. However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay the balance amounts due in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 2.1.2012. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the 1st respondent to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner withdraws the securitisaiton application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks. If he does not withdraw the same, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefits of this judgment and the writ petition would stand dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.27667/11 - : 3 :-