IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28418 of 2010 (B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL BASHEER, S/O.ALAVI, PALLITHODI HOUSE, ODAYIKKAL, PULLIPPADAM (PO), MALAPPURAM (DT). BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DY.GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER), THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NILAMBUR E 1043, NILAMBUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT. PIN. 679 329. 2. NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. EVENING BRANCH NILAMBUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. , SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 28418 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge is against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion. Ext.P5 is the judgment passed in W.P(C) No.8069 of 2010. Considering submission made by both sides, this Court had shown indulgence in permitting the petitioner to clear the entire overdue amounts in the loan account, in a phased manner. The petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30th March 2010 and the balance amount to be cleared in two equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30th April 2010 and on or before 30th May 2010. 2. It is admitted by both sides that pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was remitted on 30.3.2010. But the subsequent two instalments were not paid within the dates stipulated. However, it is conceded that an amount of Rs.60,000/- W.P(C) No. 28418 of 2010-B 2 was paid on 19.6.2010. Having failed to regularise the account as directed in Ext.P5 judgment, the respondent Bank initiated further steps and Ext.P6 notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. However, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 request explaining the circumstances under which he could not comply with the stipulations and further requested to permit payment of the entire outstanding amount. 3. Since an equitable relief was already been granted by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, it is not proper to entertain this writ petition, which is filed seeking almost the same reliefs. Further it is noticed that against Ext.P6 notice, the petitioner has got a remedy to raise objections/representations before the authorised officer. In fact Ext.P7 was already submitted in this regard. It is obligatory on the part of the respondent Bank to consider the same and to take a decision on the basis of the request made. 4. It is noticed that in a statement filed by the first respondent it is mentioned that as on 29.9.2010 an amount of Rs.1,02,628/- is outstanding as overdue in the loan account. It is further stated that a total balance outstanding is Rs.7,24,562/-. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that if the W.P(C) No. 28418 of 2010-B 3 petitioner remits the entire outstanding amounts, within a short time, and makes appropriate request for permitting payment of future instalments, the same will be considered favourably. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make payment of the entire amounts outstanding, in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.10.2010 and on or before 31.11.2010. The respondent will keep in abeyance further coercive steps till then and will take a decision on the request of the petitioner to permit payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule. 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 further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is totally precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge W.P(C) No. 28418 of 2010-B 4