IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37598 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.OMEGA COMMUNICATIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.V.REJI, S/O. VASU, AGED 48 YEARS THAKADIYEL BUILDING, PULIYANMALA ROAD, KATTAPPANA KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KATTAPPANA BRANCH, KATTAPPANA KATTAPPANA VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADDL.3. K.A.KURIEN, S/O.ABRAHAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, KUDAVANAPAT HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 4. T.V.SHAJI, S/O.VASU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, THAKADIYEL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUBANCHOLA TALUK. (ADDL.R3 & R4 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 8.1.09 ON I.A.NO.132/09) R1, R2 BY ADV.SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, S.C. ADDL.R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.K.VINOD KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.37598 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent bank quite in extenso on the different aspects of the matter. The petitioner deals in mobile phone and allied materials. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client, though has another 15 days to file a securitisation application under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the impugned Ext.P4, would chose to forego that remedy, provided a request for an opportunity to repay is granted. 2. Learned counsel for the bank states that the petitioner has two loan accounts and both the transactions are supported by the same collateral security. In the realm of commercial contracts, it may not be proper for the writ court to even state on matters touching re-scheduling unlike in the realm of housing loans etc., which may require a different approach. A WPC.37598/08 Page numbers print out of the bank account would show that from some time in August, 2007 to June, 2008, the credit had always exceeded the limit. The bank is not, therefore, wholly unjustified in taking action under the SARFAESI Act. But a drastic reduction in the total outstandings would be a sufficient assurance for the bank to permit the petitioner to repay the remaining outstandings in instalments. 3. Having considered the submissions on both sides, including on the quantum of amounts that could be fixed for repayment, it is ordered that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within three weeks and a further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 31.3.2009, he will be permitted to repay the remaining outstandings in monthly instalments of Rs.2,00,000/- each, payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from April, 2009. However, if there is default in remitting any of the amounts as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment will stand recalled automatically WPC.37598/08 Page numbers and distress action will follow. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.