IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10895 of 2011(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHANU.K.M, S/O. LATE A.M. MAKKAR, KANAMATTATHU PUTHENPURAYIL ARYANKALAYIL HOUSE, MARKET.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX BUILDINGS, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 661. 2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10895 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying an overdraft facility availed from respondents 1 and 2, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against by invoking provisions under Section 13(4) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to his request for permitting regularisation of the account. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court. 2. Considering availability of alternative remedy under the statute, it is not justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to permit regularisation the basis of an offer that the amount overdue will be paid within a short period. Such an appeal is also on the basis of a further undertaking that, the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. W.P.(C).10895/11 -2- 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and even the amount overdue for payment will come to more than Rs.1.20 lakhs. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account, in view of the relinquishment of all challenges made and also in view of the fact that the repayment period of the loan account is not yet expired. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts in default (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before 31.5.2011, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the months of April and May, 2011. 6. If payments of defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in W.P.(C).10895/11 -3- payment of any one of the instalments, 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. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb