IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4368 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HASSANKUTTY P.P.,S/O.VEERANKUTTY.P.P. AMBALATHIL HOUSE, ALUNGAL,PILLIKKAL PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, KONDOTTY BRANCH, BYPASS ROAD, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 638,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK, KONDOTTY BRANCH, BROTHERS COMPLEX,KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 638, BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.4368 of 2011-U ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Steps taken for auction sale of the immovable property, which is the secured asset with respect to various credit facilities availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, coercive steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated without considering various requests made by the petitioner, as evidenced from Exts.P4 and P6, to permit waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses and to facilitate one time settlement. It is noticed that considering one of such requests, the respondents have issued reply as per Ext.P5, intimating that the offer made for payment of Rs.15,80,000/- is not acceptable. Under the above circumstances the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to restrain further coercive steps for dispossession W.P(C) No.4368 of 2011-U 2 and sale of the immovable property. 2. Considering the remedies available under the relevant statute, it is not proper and justified on the part of this court to interfere with the proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that three distinct credit facilities availed by the petitioner are in chronic defaults and the total amount outstanding for payment will be more than Rs.20,00,000/- . 3. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to invoke any statutory remedy. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not justified, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire balance in instalments within a reasonable time, in view of the fact that the challenges raised has W.P(C) No.4368 of 2011-U 3 already been relinquished. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance along with interest and expenses if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 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. It is 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. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab