IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26786 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MARY TONY, W/O.TONY MATHEW, MURINGATHERY VEEDU, ERUMAPETTY (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.87,HEAD OFFICE, SAHAKARANA SATHABDI MANDIRAM KOVILAKATHUMPADOM,-THIRUVAMBADI, THRISSUR-22. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, SAHAKARANA SATHABDI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKATHUMPADOM-THIRUVAMBADI THRISSUR-22.REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN,SC,THRISSUR DIST.CO-OP BANK FOR R1 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR,SC,THRISSUR DIST.CO.OP BSNK FOR R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.26786 of 2008-L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent. On default in repaying all the instalments, steps were taken for recovery. This led to Ext.P2 notice under the SARFAESI Act to take over possession. 2.The transaction is not disputed. The accruals, also, are not in dispute. I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings, particularly when the bank is entitled to take such action as is necessary for enforcement of the recovery. All contentions of the petitioner in challenge to Ext.P2 are hence repelled. 3.In the aforesaid situation, the learned counsel WP(C)26786/2008 -: 2 :- for the petitioner submitted that the term of the loan is not over and that the bank may be directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to regularize the transaction by paying instalments which have been defaulted. On instructions, the learned counsel for the first respondent states that there was an earlier loan availed by the petitioner which, on default, led to recovery proceedings resulting in an arbitration award and that in the course of execution of that award, the bank permitted the petitioner to pay the interest component covered by that award and to have a fresh loan for the principal amount and that it is by such procedure that the present transaction came in to be in 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the loan was availed for a business purpose of the petitioner and that her husband is totally blind and recently they had married off one of the daughters and that this should be treated as an exceptional situation by extending one more opportunity to regularize the WP(C)26786/2008 -: 3 :- transaction. 4.Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and having heard learned counsel for parties and being mentioned that the total outstandings due for regularizing would be around Rs.2.65 lakhs, including expenditure incurred until now in connection with the impugned proceedings, it is ordered that if the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.1 lakh within one month from now and the remaining portion required for regularizing the transaction within a further period of one month, the bank will treat this as an exceptional case without treating it as a precedent and shall, thereby, extend to the petitioner an opportunity to regularize the loan and to enjoy the benefit of the transaction. If there is default in remitting any of the instalments as afore-directed, the benefit of this judgment will stand recalled automatically and the respondents will be at liberty to forthwith proceed with further action. It is WP(C)26786/2008 -: 4 :- also directed that if the petitioner defaults any of the future instalments under the transaction, the first respondent will be entitled to take immediate further steps without any further notice and the petitioner will not be entitled to any benefit of regularizing the transaction thereafter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/170908