IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9853 of 2010(F) ------------------------- CMP.5340/2008 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- CELIN, W/O.ALEX, MEDONA BHAVAN, ERAVATTUVILA, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KAVANADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (GENERAL MANAGER) KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK, LTD.960,KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT.D.P.RENU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 9853 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 23.03.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire outstanding liability under the loan transaction would be cleared by way of ‘five’ equal monthly instalments and that the petitioner did not intend to press the challenge raised against the steps taken by the Bank in any manner. It was in the said circumstance, the coercive proceedings were intercepted, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on or before the 31st of March, 2010. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits on instructions that, though the petitioner satisfied the initial sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 31.03.2010, the subsequent remittance was poor, in so far as the petitioner satisfied only a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 28.04.2010, another sum of Rs.50,000/- on 03.05.2010 and a sum of Rs.18,000/- on 29.05.2010, which by itself shows that the petitioner does not have any idea to clear the due amount assured and undertaken. The learned 2 WP(C) No. 9853/2010 counsel for the petitioner submits that the deficit was never because of any laches or negligence but because of some unforeseen circumstances and that steps are being taken to clear the amount as originally undertaken before this Court. 3. Taking note of the submissions made from either side and also the remaining liability of nearly Rs.2.53 lakhs stated as to be cleared by the petitioner as put forth by the learned counsel for the Bank, the petitioner is directed to clear the balance amount within the time framed as originally stipulated; thus by effecting necessary payments by way of ‘four’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 31st of this month, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 31st of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued 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 liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc