IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30417 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAFAR P,POOVATHUM KANDIYIL HOUSE, PADANILAM, KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK,CHEROOTY ROAD BRANCH,KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK,REGIONAL OFFICE, FORT ROAD, KANNUR,CAMP,KOZHIKODE-673 001. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 30417 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Petitioner had availed a term loan from the respondent Bank during the year 2006 by mortgaging properties belonging to his brother. The loan was availed for the purpose of the business conducted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner due to down fall suffered in the business activities repayments were not regular and steps were initiated against the mortgaged property. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules for taking over possession of the immovable property as contemplated under Section 13 (4) of the Act. It is contended that eventhough petitioner had approached the respondent Bank expressing willingness to close the 2 WP(C) No. 30417/2010 loan account within a reasonable time, coercive steps are now being pursued without considering such requests. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank pointed out that the loan account is in chronic default and the outstanding balance will be more than Rs.15.25 lakhs. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner has not resorted to any of the remedies available under the statute challenging the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI act. In view of the effective alternate remedy provided under the statute, I am not at all inclined to entertain the Writ Petition on merits of the contentions. 4. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time in instalments. It is further submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing any of the rights available under the statute for challenging the proceedings in future. Eventhough interference on merits is not possible, I am inclined to show indulgence in permitting 3 WP(C) No. 30417/2010 the petitioner to make payment of the entire balance within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps pursuant to notices already issued, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with future interest and expenses if any due in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.10.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps and on such event, the petitioner will be precluded from raising any challenge against such proceedings. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc