IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16071 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.ASSANKUTTY, S/O.AVARANKUTTY HAJI, SWADESHI PETROLEUM AGENCIES, BYE PASS ROAD, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI SRI.M.N.SANDEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, RETAIL ASSETS, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, CITY CREDIT CENTRE, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RETAIL ASSETS, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, CITY CREDIT CENTRE, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16071 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed two loans from the respondent Bank; one a cash credit to an extent of Rs.10 lakhs and the other one, a term loan for Rs.24 lakhs in the year 2006. The petitioner did not choose to effect the repayments on time, under which circumstance, both the accounts were declared as 'NPA' and the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act; which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to challenge the sustainability of the steps taken by the Bank by pressing any of the grounds in the Writ Petition or by approaching the DRT, availing alternate remedy under the Act. The limited prayer pressed before this Court is only to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner, by reasonable instalments. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that, the total outstanding amount is nearly Rs. 28.55 lakhs, plus other incidental expenses. It is also stated that the default was not so innocent and that the petitioner has not effected the payments, despite the fact that the petitioner is having adequate assets and means to clear the liability. However, taking note of the fact that the 2 WP(C) No. 16071/2010 limited prayer now pressed is only to permit the petitioner to grant some instalments, this Court finds that an opportunity could be given to the petitioner to clear the outstanding entire liability in a phased manner as above. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8 lakhs on or before the 30th of this month and the balance outstanding liability shall be cleared by way of 'five' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of July, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, by pursuing such exercise from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc