IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38632 of 2010(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. BAIJU, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU, MAPPILAVELI, THANNERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. REVAMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.KUNJU, MAPPILAVELI, THANNERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.BINDU, SMT.C.G.AJITHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHERTHALA BRANCH, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, S.C, U.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.38632 of 2010-D. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Coercive steps initiated for dispossession of the petitioners from the property, which is the secured asset as far as the loan transaction is concerned, is under challenge in this writ petition. It is noticed that when steps as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated, the petitioners had invoked remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided under Sec.17(1) and SA.No.443/2009 was filed in this regard. In an Interlocutory Application filed before that Tribunal, stay of further proceedings was granted, as per order in IA.No.1931/2009, dated 11.9.2009. By the said order condition was stipulated for payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30.9.2009 and a further sum of WP(C).No.38632/2010-D. 2 Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 12.11.2009. On failure to comply with those conditions, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had vacated the interim stay. Under such circumstance respondents proceeded with steps under Sec.14(1) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to recover possession of the property. In this writ petition the petitioners seek directions to restrain such coercive steps. 2. Even though interference was not justified in view of pendency of the Securitisation Application, by way of indulgence, dispossession was stayed by this Court subject to condition of the petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Today it is reported that in compliance of the condition the petitioner had remitted the said amount. 3. Under such circumstance I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider and dispose of the Securitisation Application. The petitioners' contention is that the loan in question is liable to be waived in terms of WP(C).No.38632/2010-D. 3 the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme promulgated by the Central Government. It is left open to the petitioners to raise such contention in the pending Securitisation Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to consider and dispose of SA.No.443/2009 after affording opportunity to both sides, as early as possible, taking note of the limitation prescribed under Sec.17(5) of the Act, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 5. Needless to say that the respondents shall restrain further steps till the disposal of the Securitisation Application as directed above. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/- -// true copy /- PA to Judge.