IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5349 of 2011(P) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN PILLAI,VP XI 941,PULARI NAGAR PULARI NAGAR,VATTIYOORKAVU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MINIMOL.S.S,W/O.SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, VP XI 941,PULARI NAGAR,PULARI NAGAR, VATTIYOORKAVU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-695033. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,STATE BANK OF INDIA,STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 5349 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Repayments in a housing loan availed by the petitioners were defaulted and as a consequence proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Exts.P1 to P3 are notices issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, intimating steps taken under section 13(4). According to the petitioners, the coercive steps were pursued without considering their request for permitting regularisation of the account, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts in default. 2. Heard ; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that, after availing the loan in the year 2008, the petitioners have effected payment of only three monthly 2 W.P.(C).No. 5349 of 2011 instalments. It is further stated that the total amount outstanding is around ` 32 lakhs. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount in default, which is remaining overdue for payment itself, is more than ` 10.41 lakhs. 3. Considering the effective statutory remedy available under section 17(1) and also considering the dictum laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in United Bank of India V. Sathyawati Tondon & Ors. (2010(8) SCC 110), this Court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made a plea to this Court, to permit regularisation on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioners are not intending to invoke any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings. 5. Considering the limited prayer made, I am of the view that, even though interference is not justified, the 3 W.P.(C).No. 5349 of 2011 petitioners can be permitted to regularise the account, subject to condition that all future monthly instalments will be paid without any default. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the amount overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and other expenses), in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before last day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in 4 W.P.(C).No. 5349 of 2011 payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/