IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37273 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THULISI BAI C AGED 68 YEARS, PARAMBIL VEEDU, T.C.36/113, VALLAKADAVU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -8 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER) HOTEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014 2. THE MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHACKAI, BRANCH, CHACKAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37273 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a 'cash credit open loan' availed from the respondent Bank, the immovable property which is the secured asset was proceeded against. 2. Considering the provisions contained in Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act, it is highly premature for the petitioner to approach this Court seeking to challenge Ext.P2. The petitioner has got an effective remedy to file objection/representation on receipt of any demand issued under Section 13(2). Further, if any such objection is raised, the respondent Bank is at an obligation to consider the same and to issue a reply. Statute also provides further W.P(C) No.37273 of 2010-H 2 remedy under Section 17(1) in case of rejection of such objection and in case further steps are proceeded against. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to make payment of the entire arrears in lump sum, provided the respondent Bank allows considerable waiver with respect to interest/penal interest/expenses to the possible extent. Considering the above submission, I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank in order to pursue such remedies. Of course it is for the respondent Bank to decide as to whether any such waiver can be permitted or not. The petitioner seeks a further direction for return of the title deeds, on settlement of payment of the amounts due, at a stretch. I am having an opinion that it is also highly premature for this Court to issue any such direction since the amount is yet to be settled and paid. 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to approach the appropriate authority among the respondents W.P(C) No.37273 of 2010-H 3 to seek reliefs regarding 'one time settlement' of the loan account by offering payment of a consolidated amount. If any such representation is submitted by the petitioner before the appropriate authority among the respondents, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and a decision thereof shall be taken by such authority, considering the merits of such offer. 5. Needless to say that, a decision in this regard shall be intimated to the petitioner, and she shall be permitted reasonable time to make payment of the amounts due under the settlement, if any arrived. 6. Further coercive steps of recovery can be pursued only after intimating such decision to the petitioner, if the petitioner submits any such offer within the time stipulated as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab //True Copy//