IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4580 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SAJITHA HASSAN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.ALI HASSAN, C.P.S.MANZIL, KODAKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ESM.KABEER, SRI.M.A.FIROSH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. P-521, S.P.O.ROAD, SULTHANPETTA, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER), THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PALAKKAD - 678 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4580 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is challenged in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank during the year 2009, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P1 is the notice issued intimating steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner, various requests made for permitting regularisation of the account as well as for payment of the amount in instalments were not considered by the respondents. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain the recovery steps. 3. Heard, counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and there is a total outstanding of more than Rs.21.58 lakhs. It is W.P.(C).4580/11 -2- mentioned that the petitioner has not cared to make payment of any amount, inspite of repeated demands and the Bank has not received any request seeking instalment facility or regularisation, as contended. 4. Eventhough this court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition, the imminent steps for dispossession of the property was stayed through an interim order issued, insisting to make payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- within two weeks from 11.2.2011. It is reported that the said amount has already been paid. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even after crediting such payments, there is an outstanding of more than Rs.5.82 lakhs overdue for payment (defaulted payments). 5. Considering the effective remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, it is not justified on the part of this court in interfering with the matter. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit payment of the amounts in default for the purpose of regularising the account, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges. I am of the view that eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account by paying the amounts in default within a short time, since she had regularised the challenges and the repayment period is not over. W.P.(C).4580/11 -3- 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months, along with regular EMIs due for the respective months. 7. If payment of the defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future EMIs, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb