IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 388 of 2011(W) ------------------------ PETITIONERS:- -------------------- 1. I.N.RAJAN, AGED 55 YEARS, 344, INCHIPPULLIKADAN, KADUKUTTY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MRS.GIRIJAKUMARI, NEENA NIVAS, EDAVATTAM, NEAR ESI DISPENSARY, KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SECURITIZATION ] AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002 (BANK OF INDIA), ZONAL OFFICE, KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR, KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-17. 2. BANK OF INDIA LTD. REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, QUILON BRANCH, CONVENT ROAD, KOLLAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.JOYI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.388 of 2011-W. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to the default committed by the petitioners in repayment of loan availed from the respondent bank, proceedings was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset, on the basis of Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is stated that the bank is now proceeding with further steps for sale of the property and to physically dispossess the petitioners from the property. According to the petitioners, the coercive steps are being pursued without considering their request for permitting to remit the amount in instalments within a reasonable WP(C).No.388 of 2011-W. 2 time. 2. Heard; learned standing counsel Sri.P.P.Joyi appearing for the respondents 3. It is noticed that the petitioners have not chosen to submit any objections or representations when notice under Sec.13(2) was issued. Further it is noticed that the petitioners have not availed the remedy provided under Sec.17(1) against the steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 notice. Under such circumstance, this Court could not interfere, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not intending to invoke any statutory remedies, and that they are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, limited prayer is to permit the petitioners to pay off the entire arrears in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. WP(C).No.388 of 2011-W. 3 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioners to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time in instalments. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, provided the petitioners remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in eight equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already issued. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition WP(C).No.388 of 2011-W. 4 that the petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-