IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15213 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SUNIL KUMAR.M, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. SEKHARAN, MANDODY HOUSE, P.O. NORTH BEYPORE, NADUVATTOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. RAJITHA, W/O. SUNIL KUMAR, MANDODY HOUSE, P.O. NORTH BEYPORE, NADUVATTOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. A.RANJITH NARAYANAN MR. S.K.SAJU RESPONDENTS: --------------- BANK OF INDIA, KOZHIKODE BRANCH, CITY TOWER, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER. ADV. MR. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MR. K.M.ANEESH MR. K.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15213 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs. 8.5 lakhs from the respondent Bank on 23.8.2006, creating security interest over the property in question. But, the repayment could not effected on time, under which circumstances, the Bank declared the account as 'NPA' and proceeded with the steps under the SARFAESI Act, for realization of the entire amount due, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 19.5.2010, the coercive proceedings were intercepted on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs within two weeks, which is stated as complied with. 3.The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that, right from the beginning, the petitioner was a defaulter and nothing was paid towards the installments and the first installment itself was effected only after issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act on 31.5.2008. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the default was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen circumstances and that earnest efforts are being made to wipe off the W.P. (C) No. 15213 of 2010 : 2 : entire liability under the loan transaction. It is also stated by the learned counsel that, the petitioner does not intend to press any of the grounds raised against the steps taken by the Bank, nor does the petitioner intend to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the DRT. The limited relief prayed for is to permit the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability by way of reasonable installments and also to direct the Bank to provide the benefit of OTS, or some or other allowances/concession, if any. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability by way of '6' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before 15th of July, 2010 to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 15th of the succeeding months. This will not bar the way of the petitioner to approach the Bank for extending some or other concession/allowances, if any and in case any such relief is extended by the Bank, the same shall be set off against the finishing installments to be effected. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in effecting the installments as above, the W.P. (C) No. 15213 of 2010 : 3 : respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps, from the stage where it stands now, for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum The Writ Petition is disposed of P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd