IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 542 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- VINOD KUMAR. P., KALLUVILA VEEDU, SANTHI NAGER - 93, AYATHIL P.O. KOLLAM - 17. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOLLAM BRANCH, FEDERAL BANK LTD., RAVI'S ARCADE, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM – 691 013. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORIZED OFFICER) FEDERAL BANK LTD., RAVI'S ARCADE, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM – 691 013. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE MANACHIRAKAL, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 542 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) is challenged before this court. Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a mortgage loan availed by from the respondent Bank, immovable property, which is the secured asset was proceeded against. On approach made by the 1st respondent the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner in exercise of the power conferred under section 14(1) to take over possession of the property in question. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requiring to handover possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioner, the secured asset is the residential building of the petitioner wherein he is residing along with his family and any dispossession will cause irreparable injury and severe prejudice. It is contended that coercive steps are initiated without accepting the request for WP(C).542/2011 2 granting sufficient time to wipe off the liability. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy provided, at any stage when steps under section 13(2) and 13(4) was initiated, it is not justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings. However, by virtue of an interim order issued, dispossession was stayed subject to the condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is submitted that the amount has already been paid. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the balance outstanding is around more than Rs.1.39 lakhs. Since the period of repayment is going to expire in November, 2011, the Bank is not allowing any extended period for remittance of the amounts due. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes an appeal to this court to permit payment of the balance amount in instalments, within a reasonable time, on the basis of the submission that the petitioner is not intending to pursue statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings. 5. Considering the limited prayer, I am of the view that eventhough interference on merits is not proper, petitioner WP(C).542/2011 3 can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in instalments within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to keep in abeyance dispossession and sale of the property in question, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that if the petitioner approaches the respondent Bank seeking copy of the statement of accounts, the same shall be furnished to the petitioner. It is also left open to the petitioner to point out genuine mistake if any in the account and on such event the Bank will be at liberty to rectify the same. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued and on any such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such WP(C).542/2011 4 proceedings . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/