IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5365 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. DEVAN. L, S/O.LAKSHMANAN. K.C, "AMMA", NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KODUMBU, PALGHAT-678 552. 2. JAYASREE, W/O.L. DEVAN, "AMMA" NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KODUMBU, PALGHAT-678 552. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO, SMT.N.SHOBHA, SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, 35/307B J & J1, IIND FLOOR, PAKALAKKAL BUILDINGS, THAMMANAM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, 11/1447, MARKET ROAD, PALGHAT-678 014. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.N. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5365 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation 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 petitioners in repaying a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank in the year 2004, immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. By virtue of Ext.P1 notice, sale of the property was proclaimed by the respondents. Contention of the petitioners is that the period of repayment is for 15 years and the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to the request made by them to permit regularisation, on the basis of an offer for payment of the amounts overdue within a short time. 2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the amounts overdue for payment is around Rs.87,000/- as on today. It is further stated that the petitioners have committed consecutive defaults in payment of the instalments. 3. Considering the alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1), I am of the view that interference of this court is not warranted. However, learned counsel for petitioners W.P.(C).5365/11 -2- undertook that the petitioners are not pursuing any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, a limited request was made to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer that the defaulted amounts will be paid within a short time. 4. Considering the circumstances prevailing, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation in view of the fact that the petitioners have relinquished all the challenges and also considering the fact that the repayment period is for 15 years. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire amounts overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months along with payment of regular EMIs due for the respective months. 6. If payments of the amounts in default is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioners to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. W.P.(C).5365/11 -3- 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb