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. 9436 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.GLOBAL ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS, TIPU SULTHAN ROAD, TRIPRAYAR, VALAPPAD P.O., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, TRIPRAYAR BRANCH,NATTIKA P.O., TRICHUR - 680 567. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIPRAYAR BRANCH,NATTIKA P.O., TRICHUR - 680 567. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH 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.9436 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge is against proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) initiated consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank. It is conceded that the immovable property, which is the secured asset, has already been taken over possession pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 14(1) of the Act. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction for re-delivery of the property and the residential building situated therein. The petitioner inter alia challenges the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act on the basis that the amount claimed are not true and correct. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondent Bank it is mentioned that on an earlier occasion, when notice under Section 13(2) was issued, the petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C). 38009/2008. From Ext.R1(b), copy of the Judgment in the said case, it is revealed that the petitioner had made a request before this court for 90 days' time to pay off the entire outstanding. This court observed that the Bank could W.P.(C).9436/11 -2- not be compelled to take any particular course of action in this regard. However, it was observed that it will be appropriate for the Bank to give the petitioner facility to repay the amount during the current financial year. 3. The said judgment was pronounced as early as on 23.12.2008. But it is evident that the petitioner has not remitted the amount as conceded. It is further evident from the statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the guarantor of the loan transaction had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained a conditional stay against the coercive steps, subject to condition incorporated for payment of a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs. It is conceded that the guarantor had remitted the said amount. The matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is still pending, is the submission. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank specifically pointed out that the petitioner had suppressed all the above facts while approaching this court in the present writ petition. Under such circumstances, no relief can be granted, is the contention. 4. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to make payment of the balance outstanding, provided the respondent Bank gives due credit to the amount of subsidy received from the Khadi and Village Industries Board as well as to the amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs paid W.P.(C).9436/11 -3- by the guarantor. It is for the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank seeking settlement of the account and for payment of the balance amount. Needless to say that if the petitioner makes payment of the entire balance, the property already taken over possession has to be returned to the petitioner. 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank to seek appropriate remedy. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb