IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21663 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- SEETHALAKSHMI,AGED 47,W/O.SUNDARAN NAIR, UTHRAM NIVAS,THEKKETHARA, PUTHUSSERRY P.O. PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MS. R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, OTTAPPALAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THAHASILDAR, OTTAPPALAM. 4. THAHASILDAR, PALAKKAD. 5. VINOD S.,AGED 34, S/O.SIVARAMAN, UTHRAM NIVAS, THEKKETHARA, PUTHUSSERRY P.O., PALAKKAD. 6. M.VISWANATHAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, CHAITHRA POURNAMI, KANCHIKKODE P.O. PALAKKAD. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR. R. S. KALKURA, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21663 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a guarantor to the loan availed by the principal borrowers/respondents 5 and 6 from the first respondent Bank. When the amount due to the Bank was not repaid on time, there was no alternative for the Bank, but to proceed with steps under the SARFAESI Act, aggrieved of which, petitioner has approached this Court seeking to intercept the sale proceedings. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the default was never because of any wilful laches or deliberate negligence, but for some unforeseen circumstances. It is also pointed out that, the petitioner, though only a guarantor, is taking appropriate steps to see that the liability to the Bank is cleared at the earliest and with this intent, she is arranging funds to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs within a short time and that the balance might be permitted to be cleared by way of reasonable installments. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that, as on date, a sum of about Rs. 11.6 lakhs is due from the petitioner and that if the petitioner proves her bonafides by effecting a substantial portion of the liability and also satisfies the remaining amount by way of WP (C) No. 21663 of 2009 : 2 : shortest possible installments, the Bank will not proceed against the property of the petitioner and will confine the steps against the properties of principal borrowers/respondents 5 and 6. 4. Considering the nature of relief sought for and proposed to be given by this Court, no notice is intended to be issued to the 5th and 6th respondents for the time being. 5. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs within one month and the balance amount shall be cleared by way of '5' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 15th of October, 2009 to be followed by the remaining installments to be effected or before the 15th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, the recovery proceedings, stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the installments as aforesaid, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. 6. It is also made clear that, the judgment passed by this Court will not place any hurdle on the path of the respondent Bank in proceeding with appropriate steps against the 5th and 6th respondents, in respect of the item No.1 property scheduled in Ext.P2, since the WP (C) No. 21663 of 2009 : 3 : proceedings taken by the Bank are stated as not subjected to challenge at the instance of the said respondents. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly, P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd