IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7816 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KUNHIRAMAN.G.K,S/O.KUNHURAVUNNI, GANAPATHY KANDY,KUNNATHUKUNIYIL HOUSE, PERAMBRA PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA, SMT.D.S.THUSHARA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,PERSONAL AND HOUSING LOAN(CELL),MARAKKAR BUILDING,M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PERAMBRA BRANCH 4. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. R1 TO R4 BY ADV.MR. N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No. 7816 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent bank for realisation of the due amount under a housing loan, invoking the remedy under the SARFAESI Act. 2. A sum of Rs.1.9 lakhs was taken as loan by the petitioner, which was also agreed to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. It is stated that no recovery was actually made at instance of the bank; under which circumstances, the petitioner satisfied a total sum of Rs.1.10 lakhs, though some default has been resulted in clearing the liability on time. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits on instructions that, nearly 40 installments have been defaulted by the petitioner and that a sum of Rs.1.2 lakhs is due towards the defaulted installments. Unless and W.P.(C).No. 7816 of 2010 2 until, the said 'overdue' amount is cleared, the request of the petitioner to have the loan account regularised is not liable to be entertained, submits the learned counsel for the respondent bank. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner does not want to challenge the sustainability of the steps taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act and that the only relief now pressed for before this Court, is to grant some reasonable time to satisfy the 'overdue' amount and to have the loan account regularised; simultaneously asserting and undertaking that the petitioner will clear the entire 'overdue' amount as well as the regular EMIs without fail. 5. After hearing both sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant some breathing time to the petitioner, to clear the 'overdue' amount and to have the loan account regularised. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to satisfy a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand W.P.(C).No. 7816 of 2010 3 only) on or before the 15th of April 2010 and the balance overdue amount on or before the 30th of April 2010. This will be in addition to the liability to satisfy the regular EMIs as well. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings 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 'overdue' amount as above, or if any two successive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed with further steps, to recover the entire liability in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl