IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21950 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M.G.RADHESH, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR KANNANNOOR DEVI SADANAM, THRIPERUNTHURA, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI KANNANNOOR DEVI SADANAM, THRIPERUNTHURA, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. DEVAKI AMMA, W/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR KANNANNOOR DEVI SADANAM, THRIPERUNTHURA, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.BIJILY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. HDFC BANK LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL (WEST) MUMBAI 400 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, SUMIT P PRASAD, HDFC BANK LIMITED, ERNAKULAM BRANCH -16. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK LIMITED, CHETTIKULANGARA BRANCH, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 106. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 21950 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S NO. 113 OF 2004 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA DTD 12.01.2005. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE E.P. NO. 286 OF 2005 IN O.S. NO. 113 OF 2004 DATED 17.12.2005. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE E.P. NO. 286 OF 2005. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE M.P. NO. 3501 OF 2011. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE ADV. COMMISSIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 21950 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the 1st petitioner. The petitioners do not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioners only seek facility to pay off the amounts due in instalments. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioners shall pay the balance amounts due in eight equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioners pay the instalments on the due dates without default, coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioners commit default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge