IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36869 of 2009(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S. SASI, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KAIRALI FASHION JEWELLARY USHUS, SREENIVASAPURAM P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.SREEKUMAR MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KUNDARA BRANCH, KOLLAM. R1& R2 BY ADV. MR.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR,SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 36869 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs 25 lakhs from the respondent Bank for conducting the jewellery business . But the petitioner could not prove his words by his deeds in repaying the monthly installments, under which circumstance, there was no other alternative for the respondent-Bank but to have the account declared as NPA for realization of the due amount invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act, which in turn is subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non- payment of due amount was never because of any wilful latches or deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner, but because of some unforeseen downfall in the business, which very much adversely affected his business. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the entire liability provided some breathing time is given in this regard. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the W.P(C) No. 36869 OF 2009 2 respondent Bank as well, who submits that there is absolutely no merit in the case and that the action taken by the Bank is very much within the four walls of the law and is not assailable under any circumstances. The learned Standing Counsel also points out that unless and until the petitioner proves his bonafides by effecting substantial deposit , the claim now put forth cannot be entertained. 4. Considering the fact and circumstances and also considering the vide extent of outstanding liability, the petitioner is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs. Five lakhs on or before 31st of this month and the balance amount including interest and cost shall be satisfied by way of 7 equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 28.02.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before 30th of the succeeding months. If any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the liability as above, the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed with further W.P(C) No. 36869 OF 2009 3 steps from the stage where it stands now for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk