IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17002 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.P.THOMAS, MANICHILAYIL VEEDU, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAGHUNANDANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHEMBU, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A. SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No.17002 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 30th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the coercive steps stated as being pursued by the respondent-Bank invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that in respect of the housing loan to the tune of Rs.4.2 lakhs, the petitioner has already remitted a sum of Rs.3.3 lakhs and that the amount deposited by the petitioner has not been properly given credit to. It is also the case of the petitioner that fixation of the liability by the Bank is not in tune with the guidelines prescribed by the Reserve Bank and that the petitioner has already approached the first respondent-Bank by filing Ext.P5 representation for restructuring the loan account in tune with the guidelines and also taking note of the pathetic condition of the petitioner as explained therein. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the W.P.(C) No.17002 OF 2009 2 respondent-Bank, who submits, on instruction that, as on date, a sum of Rs.4,07,749/- is due towards the defaulted E.M.Is. The learned Counsel also submits that regularisation of the loan account can be considered only if the petitioner clears the entire liability towards the defaulted E.M.Is, simultaneously adding that Ext.P5 representation can be considered only if the petitioner proves his bonafides by effecting sizable amount towards arrears. 3. After considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. One lakh within one month, under which circumstances, the first respondent Bank will consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On communicating the outcome, the petitioner will be bound to clear the arrears towards defaulted E.M.Is to the extent and in the manner as, to be conveyed as aforesaid. Subject to the above, the coercive proceedings now stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if the petitioner commits any default in effecting the W.P.(C) No.17002 OF 2009 3 payments as above, the respondent-Bank will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk