IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28918 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.RAMAN, S/O.LATE SHANKARAN, PAYATICHAL, PERIYA P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, PERIYA BAZAR BRANCH, P.O.PERIYA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. 2. THE NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, KANNUR - 670 001. ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.28918 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Proceedings initiated by the respondents, under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), is challenged in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a housing loan availed from the 1st respondent Bank, Ext.P4 notice was issued as contemplated under Section 13(2), intimating steps proposed against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. 2. According to the petitioner the steps were initiated in violation of Ext.P3 order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kasargod. Contention is that the said Forum, through Ext.P3, had directed the respondent Bank to furnish certain documents as requested by the petitioner against which the respondent had made unsuccessful challenge before the State Commission. It is W.P(C) No.28918 of 2010-L 2 contended that the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act without compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P3 is unsustainable. 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. I take notice that the challenge is against steps initiated under Section 13(2). The contention raised is regarding correctness of the amount demanded as well as validity of such demand, on the basis that, the proceedings was initiated without compliance of Ext.P3. I take further notice that the petitioner has not chosen to file any objection against Ext.P4. With respect to the contentions regarding violation of Ext.P3, it is evident that in Ext.P3 the District Consumer Forum had issued directions to the respondent Bank to furnish copies of certain documents and the petitioner was directed to make payment of the amount due in accordance with the original schedule of loan agreement. If there is any violation with respect to the directions contained in Ext.P3, it is left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy by way of execution. W.P(C) No.28918 of 2010-L 3 But going by the provisions contained in Section 13(4) and 13(5) of the SARFAESI Act, I am of the opinion that Civil Court as well as other authorities are restrained from interfering with the proceedings initiated and that the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act will be having an overriding effect with respect to any other liability for the time being in force. 4. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit to interfere with the proceedings on the basis of Ext.P3. The petitioner, being failed in submitting any objection against Ext.P3, and in view of the fact of availability of further remedy under Section 17(1), I am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings at this stage. 5. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue the challenges and on the other hand he is seeking a limited relief to permit payment of the entire liability in a phased manner within a reasonable time. W.P(C) No.28918 of 2010-L 4 6. It is noticed that by virtue of an interim order issued by this Court, the petitioner had effected payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/-. According to learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, the amount outstanding as on 30.11.2010 is Rs.2,71,150/-. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in instalments within a reasonable time. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P4 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any, due in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 8. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the respondents seeking any clarification regarding the calculation of interest and also seeking waiver of any interest/penal interest or expenses to the possible extent. W.P(C) No.28918 of 2010-L 5 This judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents to consider any such request and taking any appropriate decision thereof. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of Ext.P4 notice. 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 the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab