IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1252 of 2011(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ASHRAF, PROPRIETOR, SULABHAM MARGIN FREE MARKET, ADIKKATTUKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NOORANAD BRANCH - 690 504. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1252 of 2011-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 notice issued intimating steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner had committed default in repayment of a business loan availed from the respondent Bank, and consequently the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. Contention of the petitioner is that, by virtue of payments effected, the amount was brought down within the limits of the credit facility and hence the respondent ought to have permitted continuance of the account instead of resorting to coercive steps under the SARFASI Act. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the facility in question remains recalled and the amount was W.P(C) No.1252 of 2011-I 2 already classified as 'NPA'. It is further stated that the business for which the facility was availed remains defunct and there was no stock in trade available. Under such circumstances, a revival of the facility is out of question, is the submission. 3. Considering availability of effective remedy provided under the statute, I am of the view that it is not justified on the part of this Court to interfere with the proceedings. From the facts and circumstances, it is not possible to direct the respondent to revive the credit facility. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand, a limited prayer is made to permit payment of the entire balance outstanding in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 4. Considering the limited request made, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, this Court may be justified in granting time for payment of W.P(C) No.1252 of 2011-I 3 the entire liability. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the immovable property (secured asset), 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 15.3.2011 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months. 6. 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 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