IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 27449 of 2010(E) -------------------------- CMP.3288/2010 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SUNILA, D/O.SAMUEL WATTS, AGED 41 YEARS, GRACE BHAVAN, VETTINAD, VATTAPPARA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, MANAGER, NEDUMANGAD CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.3193, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 541. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.S.MADHU, SRI.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 27449 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Consequent to default committed in repayment of personal loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent bank, proceedings was initiated invoking section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram by filing C.M.P. No.3288 of 2010. When proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated, the petitioner approached the respondent seeking permission for payment of the amount in instalments. But without considering the said request, coercive steps were pursued. The petitioner apprehends W.P.(C) No. 27449/2010 2 that she will be dispossessed from the property pursuant to orders which may be issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had not resorted to any of the statutory remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act, before approaching this Court, at any stage when steps were initiated under SARFAESI Act. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the writ petition came up for consideration, this Court granted an interim stay against dispossession of the petitioner from the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks from 3-9-2010. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that stipulation had already been complied with by remitting the said amount. 4. On the basis of notice issued from this Court, the respondent entered appearance through a counsel. But the respondent had not filed any statement or counter affidavit, in spite of various postings. There was no representation for the respondent since the last more than three postings. W.P.(C) No. 27449/2010 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to invoke any of the statutory remedies and that she is relinquishing all challenges against proceedings now initiated. On the other hand, limited prayer of the petitioner is to permit payment of the entire amount outstanding in a phased manner within a reasonable period. Even though interference on merits is not possible, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable period in instalments. From Ext.P1 it is noticed that the amount outstanding as on 12-2-2010 is Rs.2,25,734/- and the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance further steps for dispossession of the petitioner, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with future interest if any due in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31-12-2010 and on or before the last day of every succeeding months. W.P.(C) No. 27449/2010 4 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment any of the instalment, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the proceedings initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is also made clear that the relief granted above is subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.