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. 5827 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.RISHEENDRAN NAMBIAR, 'SOUBHAGYA', KARA PEROOR, POST KARA, VIA. MATTANUR, KANNUR-670 702. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REP.BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, PLATINUM CENTER, FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670 001. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PLATINUM CENTER, FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670 001. BY SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH - SC ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 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.5827 of 2011-C ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a commercial loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The immovable property, which is the secured asset, has now been proceeded against, invoking Section 14(1) of the Act, by approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is stated that the said Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property, who in turn had issued Ext.P4 notice. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to his request to permit instalment facility for payment of the balance outstanding. 2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan in question is W.P(C) No.5827 of 2011-C 2 in chronic default and the balance outstanding for payment is more than Rs.5.50 lakhs. 3. Considering the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, this Court is not justified in interfering with the proceedings, which is now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner undertook that the petitioner is not seeking any statutory remedy and that he is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings. On the other hand, a limited prayer is made to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not justified, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability in instalments within a reasonable time, especially in view of the relinquishment made by the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all steps for W.P(C) No.5827 of 2011-C 3 dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance along with future interest and expenses if any due, in 7 (seven) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.2.2011 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 also 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