IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35929 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ MARIYAMBEE, AGED 40, S/O.VEERANKUTTY, POURNAMI HOUSE, CHEMBALODE, CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. INDIAN BANK, PALAKKAD BRANCH, P.B.NO.91 KEETHI COMPLEX, COURT ROAD, PALAKKAD, REP. BY MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, ERNAKULAM-682035. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.35929 of 2010-M. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to the default committed in effecting prompt repayment of the over draft facility availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Ext.P2 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is stated that coercive steps as contemplated under Sec.13(4) was also taken by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were proceeded without acceding to the request for permitting regularisation of the loan account. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 2. Heard; learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank. WP(C).No.35929 of 2011-M. 2 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not resorted to the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the Act, this Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, as a gesture of indulgence, dispossession of the petitioner from the property was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.75,000/-. It is reported that the condition stipulated has already been complied with. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceeding and that she is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the total balance outstanding payment will be around to Rs.1,95,000/-. WP(C).No.35929 of 2011-M. 3 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time in instalments. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated based on the notices already issued, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in six equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.4.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already issued. It is also made WP(C).No.35929 of 2011-M. 4 clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-