IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24966 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.DEVADASAN, S/O.DEVADASAN, S/O.IMBICHI, AGED 51 YEARS, M/S.ANAGHA WOOD INDUSTRIES, ARAPUZHA, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.24966 of 2010-U ---------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T I am not at all inclined to entertain challenges raised in this writ petition against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in view of remedies provided under that statute. It is obvious that the petitioner, on receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, has not chosen to raise any objection. The notice now issued under Section 13(4) is also amenable to challenge in statutory appeal. Having not utilized any of the above opportunities, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge validity or correctness of the proceedings in a writ petition. 2. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- subsequent to Ext.P1, and that he is ready and willing to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time, in instalments. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank pointed out that the amount demanded under Ext.P3 is Rs.10,27,138/- along with interest due from 31.7.2010 onwards. Since the loan account in W.P(C) No.24966 of 2010-U 2 chronic default, the proposal for providing instalment facility is stiffly opposed. 4. Having considered rival contentions and the facts and circumstances attendant in this case, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in instalments, within a reasonable time. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep further steps pursuant to Ext.P3 in abeyance, on condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance amounts due, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.9.2010 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps of recovery. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings, either before this Court or before any other forum. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge