IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 536 of 2011(N) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S.TRUE WEALTH HOTELS PVT.LTD. THE VENUS' PALLIMUKKU, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682016,REPRESENTED ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY K.ESWARA PILLAI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, VI FLOOR, AMRUTHA TOWERS, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN, SC., SOUTH INDIAN BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.536 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying loan availed from the respondent Bank. The immovable property, which is a secured asset, has been proceeded against. The respondent Bank had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court invoking Section 14(1) and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the immovable property. 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act was initiated during when an O.A. filed by the respondent Bank is pending adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is further contended that the coercive steps were initiated without considering the 2 W.P.(C).No.536 of 2011 request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2, for granting time for repayment of the amounts. 3. Considering the effective statutory remedy available, which the petitioner had failed to invoke, this Court may not be justified in interfering with the proceeding. However, indulgence was shown in restraining dispossession from the property, subject to conditions imposed by this Court through various interim orders. It is reported that, after filing of the writ petition, in compliance with various interim orders issued by this Court, the petitioner had effected deposit of a total sum of Rs.80 lakhs. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a representation filed before the authorities of the respondent Bank for granting instalment facility for payment of the balance amount is pending consideration. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the entire balance outstanding in a phased manner within a reasonable time, on the basis of a 3 W.P.(C).No.536 of 2011 specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 6. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, indulgence can be shown in permitting payment of the balance amount outstanding in a phased manner, especially in view of relinquishment of the challenges made and also in view of the payments already effected after filing of this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 8. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as 4 W.P.(C).No.536 of 2011 directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the steps already taken and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/ Paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 1.6.2011 in W.P.(C) 536/11 is deleted as per order dated 18.8.2011 in R.P.532/11 in W.P.(C) 536/11. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)