IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26875 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOHNY P.L., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LONAPPAN, PALATTY HOUSE, KARAYAMPARAMBU, KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY-683 576. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REP. BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (SARFAESI ACT), REGIONAL OFFICE, DHARMODHAYAM BUILDING, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI-400 001. R1 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 26875 of 2010-H ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by proceedings initiated by the first respondent under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Having committed default in repayment of two housing loans availed by the petitioner, the first respondent initiated steps against the secured assets, approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate invoking Section 14 of the Act. An Advocate Commissioner has already been appointed to take over possession of the secured assets. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requesting the petitioner to hand over possession of the property on 31.8.2010. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of payment has not been expired and that he is ready and willing to clear payment of the outstanding arrears, and to continue with regular payments in future. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the W.P(C) No. 26875 of 2010-H 2 first respondent. It is contended that the petitioner has defaulted payment of the instalments on a continuous basis and no payment was effected inspite of issuance of various demands. Therefore permitting regularization of the loan is not desirable. 3. Eventhough challenge against the proceedings under SARFAESI Act could not entertained in this Writ Petition, having considered the fact that repayment period of the loan has not expired, I am inclined to show indulgence in permitting the petitioner to regularise the repayments within a short period. 4. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make payment of the overdue amounts in both the housing loan account, along with interest if any due in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, starting from 15.9.2010 and on or before 15th day of the succeeding months. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular instalments due for the three months along with such payments. If payments are regularized as directed above, the first respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue repayment of the balance amount as per original schedule of the re-payment. 5. It is made clear that the proceedings initiated under the W.P(C) No. 26875 of 2010-H 3 SARFAESI Act shall be kept in abeyance till regularization of the loan account and the same may not be invoked, if the petitioner continues regular payments. If payment of anyone of the instalments is defaulted, the first respondent will be at liberty to pursue the matter by approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is further made clear that, the petitioner as well as his wife, who is a joint lonee, or any other co-obligents are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings initiated, either by approaching this Court or any other authority. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ab