IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11889 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ E.PRADEEP KUMAR,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE.APPUNNY,ELAMANA HOUSE,P.O.PANTHEERANKAVE, CALICUT-19. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,2ND FLOOR,THAVOT PLACE,KANNUR ROAD, CALICUT-673 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,MANKAVE BRANCH,MANKAVE.P.O, CALICUT-67 001. BY ADV. MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.11889 of 2010-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and other consequential proceedings including Ext.P3 possession notice dated 23.3.2010. The petitioner had availed a business loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the respondent Bank on 18.3.2009 but the re-payment could not be effected on time. In the said circumstances, the account of the petitioner was declared as 'NPA' and the Bank proceeded with further steps invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, which is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter right from the beginning. In the said circumstances, the Bank proceeded with further steps as borne by Exts.P2 and P3, which are strictly in conformity with the statutory requirements and not assailable under any circumstances. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to challenge the sustainability of the W.P(C) No.11889 of 2010-I 2 steps taken by the Bank by availing the statutory remedy by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the limited prayer pressed before this Court is only to permit the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of reasonable instalments. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the default occurred was only because of the sudden down fall of business and adds that the loan is hardly one year old. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.l lakh on or before 30th of this month and the balance amount shall be satisfied by way of ‘five’ equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of May 2010; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the due amount as above, it will open to the Bank, to proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab