IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32951 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SATHY.L.,ADVOCATE, LALITHA BHAVAN, K.P.VII/21, JAYAPRAKASH LANE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SARB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32951 of 2010-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a practicing advocate in the courts at Thiruvananthapuram. She had filed this writ petition aggrieved by the coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed from the respondent Bank, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. After completing formalities contemplated under Section 13(2) and 13(4), the property was now proclaimed for sale by virtue of Exts.P5 and Ext.P6 notice. 2. According to the petitioner the respondent Bank had permitted her to settle the account on the basis of 'One Time Settlement Scheme', by virtue of Ext.2 letter. As per terms of Ext.P2, the petitioner was permitted to settle the entire liability on payment of a sum of Rs.3,78,665/-. The W.P(C) No.32951 of 2010-T 2 petitioner was requested to make an upfront payment of 5% of the above said amount on or before 31.5.2010 and the balance amount was directed to be paid on or before 31.3.2011. But it is conceded that the petitioner had failed to make payment of the 5% amount as stipulated, on or before 30.5.2010. It is stated that on coming to notice of the proclamation of sale, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 representation seeking to permit settlement of the account in terms of Ext.P2. But in Ext.P4, the request was declined stating that the property was already proclaimed for sale and that bids if any received will be opened on 31.8.2010. On the other hand the petitioner was requested to make payment of the entire outstanding balance, before the said date. 3. Eventhough interference on merits is not justified in view of the fact that the petitioner had not chosen to avail any of the statutory remedies, this Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the liability W.P(C) No.32951 of 2010-T 3 and that she is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. On that basis as a gesture of indulgence, when the case was considered for admission, this Court had issued an interim order on 29.10.2010 directing to keep in abeyance the sale proceedings as well as dispossession of the petitioner from the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is reported that the petitioner had effected payment of the above said amount. It was also reported that the sale proclaimed under Exts.P5 and P6 has not taken place. 4. According to the petitioner, she is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that she is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. On the other hand, the limited prayer is only to permit the petitioner to settle the liability in terms of Ext.P2, on the basis of an offer that she will make payment of the balance amount before the dates stipulated therein, ie. on or before 31.3.2011. 5. It is evident that the Bank had once permitted one W.P(C) No.32951 of 2010-T 4 time settlement on the basis of considerable waiver. It is further evident that the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' is in force till 31.3.2011. At the same time, it is evident that the petitioner had failed to avail the benefit once granted, since she had not remitted the upfront payment of 5%. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that it is for the respondent Bank to decide as to whether the petitioner can be permitted to avail the benefit of one time settlement, subject to payment of belated interest on the basis of Ext.P2. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority among the respondents, seeking reliefs as stated above. It is made clear that if any such representation is made by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thus judgment, seeking reliefs for permitting payments on the basis of Ext.P2 by payment of belated interest, the respondent shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon. Such W.P(C) No.32951 of 2010-T 5 decision shall be intimated to the petitioner at the earliest. 7. Needless to say that further coercive step for sale of the property or dispossession of the petitioner, shall not be pursued till such decision is intimated to the petitioner. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab