IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32150 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANNAMMA THOMAS ALIAS SHEELA THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS SAMUEL, VAKEMANIL HOUSE, (PRORPRITIRIX CONSUMER STORES, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT). 2. BLESSEN SAM THOMAS, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS SAMUEL, VAKEMANIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ERAVIPEROOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, ERAVIPEROOR MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (ASST.GENERAL MANAGER), FEDERAL BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R1 SRI.P.R.MILTON FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 32150 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners have availed a cash credit facility as well as an educational loan from the first respondent Bank, during the years 2002 and 2005, respectively. Since the petitioners defaulted repayment, the respondents have initiated steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and Ext.P1 notice was issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act. On receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioners have caused reply through their lawyer, as per Ext.P2. It is contended that, without considering the reply submitted to the notice issued under Section 13 (2) the respondents are pursuing further coercive steps, even without considering the request made by the petitioner for permitting regualrisation of the loan accounts in question. It is also submitted that the first respondent had instituted a WPC No.32150/2010 2 suit seeking recovery of amounts due under loan accounts. Under the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is filed seeking direction for restraining the respondents from proceedings with further steps under the SARFAESI Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that on receipt of Ext.P2 reply the authorized officer had considered the objections and the decision taken in this regard was already communicated to the petitioners, by registered post. It is further stated that a total amount of Rs.89,587/- is due under the cash credit facility and an amount of Rs.95,504/- is due under an educational loan account. It is also stated that, since both the loan accounts are in chronic default and since the petitioners are not doing any business activity, the request for regularization could not be considered. 3. It is evident that the petitioner has got an effective remedy as provided under the statute against further steps if any taken by the respondents under Section 13 (4). Therefore I am not inclined to entertain this Writ WPC No.32150/2010 3 Petition to consider merits of the contentions raised. The petitioner has not raised any serious challenge against the proceedings which is legally tenable. Hence the Writ Petition deserves no merit. 4. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are relinquishing challenges against the SARFAESI proceedings and also rights if any to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand limited prayer is only to permit them to pay off the entire liability in a phased manner within a reasonable time. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, I am inclined to allow request of the petitioner for permitting payment of the entire amounts in instalments, within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further steps of recovery in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in both the loan accounts in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before WPC No.32150/2010 4 30.11.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps on the basis of notices already issued, in case the petitioner defaults payment of any one of the instalments. It is also made clear that the relief granted above is subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc