IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30129 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. A.NIZAR, ADVOCATE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.AZIZ, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERUMATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SANOOJA BEEGAM, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.NIZAR, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERUMATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001 BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.R.S.KALKURA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 30129 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM AS M.C. NO.251/2011 EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NISHAD A.R. TO THE PETITIONERS, STATING THAT COMMISSIONER WILL VISIT THE PROPERTY AND TAKE VALUATION AND HANDOVER POSSESSION TO THE RESPONDENT ON 14.11.2011 AT 2.30 P.M. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30129 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondent for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioners. The petitioners do not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioners only seek facility to regularise the loan account by paying the defaulted instalments of repayment and continue to pay the future instalments on the due dates. 2. On 11.11.11 I passed the following interim order; “The counsel for the respondent submits that, the petitioners are not entitled to any indulgence of this court in the matter since they had without intimating the Bank disposed of the security interest. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time. Post on Monday (14.11.2011).” 3. Today the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although it is true that there was a sale deed in respect of the property in question along with other properties in favour of a third party, that was only as a security and in OS No.312/2008 that sale deed was set aside by a compromise entered into between the petitioners on the one hand and the persons in whose name the sale deed was executed. The petitioners submit that at least the petitioners may be permitted w.p.c.30129/11 - : 2 :- to pay off the amounts due in instalments. 4. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. 5. However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; The petitioners shall pay the balance amounts due in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.1.2012. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioners pay the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioners commit default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondent to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge