IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22776 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NAGIRSHA KOYA, S/O.KOYA, NADAKKAPARAMPIL HOUSE, ERAYAMKUDY P.O., MAMBRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.JOHNNY, SRI. MEREENA JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, (AUTHORIZED OFFICER), REGION-1, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KORATTY BRANCH, P.B.NO.2, KORATTY. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SC SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22776 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Actions initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner had availed a loan to the tune of Rs.31,38,678/- from the 2nd respondent Bank, during July 2006. Immovable property belonging to the petitioner was mortgaged for securing the loan. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the respondents initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Having invoked jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court under Section 14(1) of the Act, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. Ext.P3 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents it is mentioned that the total overdue amount outstanding W.P.(C).22776/10-V -2- payment in the loan account is more than Rs.9.50 lakhs. It is mentioned that all the mandatory procedures required under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act has been complied with before approaching the CJM Court. 3. Considering the scheme of the statute, it is evident that the petitioner has got effective alternate remedies against the steps initiated under the SARFAESI Act. It is evident that the petitioner has not chosen to raise any objections when the demand was served under Section 13(2). The further actions as contemplated under Section 13(4) were also not challenged by approaching the appropriate statutory authority. Under such circumstances it is not proper for this court to interfere with the proceedings, now being pursued on the basis of orders issued by the CJM Court. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Act. On the other hand, request of the petitioner is for permitting payment of the W.P.(C).22776/10-V -3- defaulted amount and for regularisation of the account. This court, as a gesture of indulgence, had directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. It is conceded that the petitioner had already remitted the said amount, eventhough not within the time stipulated by this court in interim order dt.21.7.2010. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the total amount overdue for payment as on today will be around Rs.10 lakhs, less the amount of Rs.5 lakhs already remitted. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner has not taken any effective steps to wipe off the liability. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, eventhough interference on merits is not possible, some indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting regularisation of the account. 6. Under such circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession of the petitioner from the property and for sale of the property, subject to the condition that the petitioner makes payment of the entire defaulted amount along with interest and expenses if any due in 3 (three) equal monthly installments falling due on or before 30.11.2010 W.P.(C).22776/10-V -4- and on or before the last day of two succeeding months. It is made clear that the petitioner should also make payment of the regular installments due for the month from November 2010 onwards, along with the above said payments. 7. If payment of defaulted amounts is regulairsed as directed above, the respondents will permit the petitioner to continue payment of future installments in accordance with the original schedule. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the installments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb