IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26777 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.S.SHYAM KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.N.SASIDHARAN 13/225,PARAPURATH HOUSE, V.K.C. ROAD,THRIKKAKARA.P.O., THEVAKAL, KOCHI-682 021. BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL (NETTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ALWAYE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE MARKET ROAD, ALWAY-683101. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE ALWAYE URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, ALWAYE-683101. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.26777 of 2010-V ---------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is approaching this Court challenging Ext.P3 notice of sale published pursuant to action initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner availed a housing loan from the first respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- promising to repay the same in 60 monthly instalments. The impugned proceedings are initiated consequent to default committed in effecting regular repayments. It is noticed that, before Ext.P3 notice the petitioner was issued with notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner had not chosen to object such proceedings either by submitting any representation against the demand or by approaching the authority under Section 17(1) of the Act. Interference by this Court under Article 226 is not at all warranted in this case, because the petitioner had not exhaust such statutory remedies. W.P(C) No.26777 of 2010-V 2 2. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appealed for indulgence of this Court in permitting regularization of the loan account by offering payment of the defaulted amount within a short period in instalments. According to the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank, there were consecutive defaults from the side of the petitioner and the loan account is in heavy arrears. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to regularize the account, despite the fact that the contentions on merit could not be entertained. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep further coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P1 to P3 notices in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the entire amounts in default (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in three (3) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.10.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. The petitioner shall also remit the regular instalments due with respect to the above said three months along with such payments. W.P(C) No.26777 of 2010-V 3 5. If payment in the account is regularized as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future instalments in accordance with the original schedule. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already issued. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.26777 of 2010-V 4