IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3205 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ CMP.17307/2009 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER : ------------------ SUNILKUMAR D, YDHUKULAM VILAGARA, NELLIKKUNNAM, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) MR.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. STATE BANK OF TRANVANCORE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PULAMON BRANCH, KOTTARAKKARA. ADV.MR.R.S.KALKURA, STANDING COUNCIL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.3205 of 2010-A ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is seeking to reschedule the repayment in respect of the loan, which was availed by him from the respondent bank in the year 2006. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the sum of Rs.4.8 lakhs was obtained by the petitioner as a term loan, but the timely instalments could not be effected, whereby the petitioner became a defaulter, leading to coercive steps taken by the respondent, invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act. 3. The petitioner himself has produced Ext.P1 letter dtd.15.1.2010 issued by the bank, whereby the bank has agreed that the loan account could be regularised, on condition that the petitioner satisfied the 'overdue' amount as specified. The case of the petitioner is that the entire 'overdue' amount could not be arranged by the petitioner on time and hence interference is sought for. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the bank submits that W.P(C) No.3205 of 2010-A 2 the arrears in respect of the defaulted instalment will come around Rs.1.30 lakhs and that unless and until the said amount is cleared by the petitioner, the question of regularisation does not arise at all. 5. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire 'overdue' amount as mentioned above by way of 'three' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 25th of this month, to be followed similar instalments to be effected on or before the 25th of the succeeding months. On satisfying the said requirement, the loan account of the petitioner shall stand regularised. This however, will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to clear the regular EMIs as well. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in clearing the 'over due' amount as above, or if any two consecutive defaults are committed with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE //True Copy//