IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 28396 of 2009(T) -------------------------- CMP.3425/2009 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.HABEEB MUHAMMED, AGED 40, S/O.MUHAMMED KASSIM, MOORANIA MANZIL, PANDAKASSALA, MARKET ROAD, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 572. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANK, ZONAL OFFICE- KERALA, 35/3078 J & J I & II FLOOR, PAKALAKKATTU BUILDINGS, THAMMANAM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-692 025, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RAMLA HABEEB, NOORANIA MANZIL, PANDAKASSALA, MARKET ROAD, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 572. ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R1 SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 28396 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.5,44,000/- from the respondent Bank for purchasing 3 cents of land with an old building constructed thereon. Subsequently, an additional loan of Rs.5,00,000/- was also sought for and obtained from the very same Bank for renovating the building. Despite the loan facility availed in the year 2004, the petitioner could not effect the repayment on time, under which circumstance, there was no other alternative for the Bank, but to declare the account as 'NPA' and proceed with further steps under the SARFAESI Act, which is subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 08.10.2009, the coercive proceedings were intercepted on condition that, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 23.10.2009. Subsequently, the time to satisfy the condition was extended as per order dated 7.12.2009 and the petitioner was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 01.01.2010.(after satisfying a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- effected already). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the condition imposed by this Court is still to be fully satisfied. Learned counsel also submits, in response to the direction given by this Court to ascertain the WP(C) No.28396/2009 2 chance for regularization of the loan account, that a sum of Rs.6.22 lakhs (approximately) is still to be cleared by the petitioner, if at all the loan accounts are to be regularized. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made some alternative arrangements to have some other properties disposed of, to raise funds and to satisfy the entire liability to the Bank. It is also asserted and assured by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would clear the entire outstanding amount under both the loan accounts on or before the 31st of March, 2010. 5. After considering the particular facts and circumstances and the willingness expressed from the part of the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability under the loan transaction, instead of availing the benefit of regularization, within a couple of months, this Court finds it fit and proper to finalise the matter by permitting the petitioner to clear the entire liability under both the loan transactions on or before 31.03.2010. Subject to this, coercive steps now stated as being pursued by the Bank shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc