IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20768 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SURESH BABU.N., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA KURUP, VYSAKH, PANDUVATH ROAD, MARADU P.O. ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2. INDIAN BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM BRANCH. R1 BY MR. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGS R2 AND R3 BY MR. S. SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20768 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 24th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act pointing out the sequence of events and contending that no serious lapses have occurred from the part of the petitioner and that every earnest effort is being made to see that the liability is discharged, particularly in view of the direction given by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that, the petitioner was permitted to clear the liability in the manner as specified in Ext.P1, but he did not chose to honour the commitment. It is also pointed out that, because of the default committed by the petitioner, the Bank had to notify the sale in two dailies as prescribed, on two occasions which invited a cost (including other expenses) coming to a total of about Rs. 1 lakh. Eventhough the petitioner was directed to clear the liability in 20 equal monthly installments, he did not choose to effect the payment as above. That apart, as made clear in Ext.P1, the petitioner was also liable to effect regular monthly installments which was to the tune of Rs. 7,668/- and the petitioner turned to be a defaulter in this regard as well. In the said WP (C) No. 20768 of 2009 : 2 : circumstances, the Bank was constrained to publish sale in two dailies; thus inviting further expenses. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner's wife is lying paralysed and that maximum leniency might be shown to save their properties. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank, though deprecating the continued default committed by the petitioner, fairly submits that one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner as the last chance, if the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs or or before the 15th of August, 2009 and the balance within 3 months thereafter. 4. The above suggestion is readily agreed from the part of the petitioner as well and in the said circumstances, the petitioner is directed to effect a payment of Rs.1.5 lakhs on or before the 15th of August, 2009 and the entire balance amount shall be cleared within a further period of 3 months thereafter. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the payments as above, the respondent Bank will at liberty to proceed with further coercive steps, for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd