IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 24915 of 2008(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THOMAS V. ATHIRAMPUZHA, PROPRIETOR,KRUPA INDUSTRIES, PERUMPANACHY P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KERALA - 686536. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, S.M.E. BRANCH, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POLACHIRACKAL BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM - 686002. BY ADV. SRI. SAJI VARGHESE, SC FOR SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 24915 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who had availed of financial assistance from the respondent Bank, for the purposes of an SSI Unit, had committed default resulting in the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is stated that in January, 2007, notice under Section 13(2) was issued and following an order that was passed by the Magistrate exercising powers under Section 14 of the Act, possession was also taken over by the Bank. Counsel for the petitioner though urges several contentions, at the end, he requested that he be given an instalment facility to liquidate the liability so that coercive action against the immovable property could be avoided. 2. The learned standing counsel who enters appearance on behalf of the Bank on the other hand would point out that possession was taken over in 16/4/2008, but however, the petitioner forcefully repossessed the premises. According to the counsel, though they filed a complaint before the Police on 17/5/2008, in view of the remittance of WPC 24915/08 :2 : Rs.10 lakhs made by the petitioner on 21/5/2008, they did not precipitate the matter in anticipation that the balance will also be paid on or before 21/8/2008 as promised by the petitioner. It is submitted that as at present more than Rupees 15 lakhs is due. In view of the past conduct of the petitioner, counsel submits that he does not deserve any further indulgence from this court. 3. Though I have no reason to disbelieve the submissions made by the counsel for the Bank, still as the petitioner seems to be anxious to liquidate the liability and as he has also proved his bonafides by making a substantial payment, I feel yet another opportunity should be given to him so that if possible, he can salvage the property and the Bank will realise its dues. On this consideration, I direct that the petitioner be permitted to discharge the liability in 5 equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before 15/9/2008 and the subsequent instalments on or before 15th of every succeeding month. 4. Subject to payment as above, proceedings now initiated by the Bank shall be kept in abeyance, in case the petitioner commits default, WPC 24915/08 :3 : it will be open to the Bank to continue further proceedings without further notice to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp