IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34516 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BENNY.B.A,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BIJU.B.A.S/O.ANTONY, BHARANIKULAM HOUSE, MALAPALLIPPURAM.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.K.P.GEETHAMANI SMT.ASWATHI APPUKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,ICICI BANK LTD, M.G.ROAD,KOCHI 682011. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,ICICI BANK LIMITED, M.G.ROAD,KOCHI 682011. BY SRI.K.K.M.SHERIFF, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34516 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of loan availed from the respondent Bank, steps against immovable property, which is the secured asset was initiated. Invoking Section 14(1) of the Act, the respondents had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, and pursuant to an order issued by that Court the property in question was taken over possession by the respondents. This writ petition was filed at a stage when the respondents have proclaimed sale of the property, as per Ext.P4 notice. 2. According to the petitioner the sale was proclaimed without considering request of the petitioner for allowing one time settlement, by waiver of interest/penal W.P(C) No.34516 of 2010-L 2 interest and expenses, to the possible extent. 2. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not resorted to any of the statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI Act, interference of this Court at this stage of the proceedings is not at all proper and justifiable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any challenge against the proceedings nor he is intending to invoke any of the statutory remedies. On the other hand, limited prayer is only to direct the respondent Bank to consider request for one time settlement and to permit payment of the amount to be settled within a reasonable period. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the respondents are prepared to settle the account if the petitioner makes payment of a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- within a period of one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees the said offer for settlement. But he prays for a short period to make payment of the said amount in instalments. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances as W.P(C) No.34516 of 2010-L 3 stated above, I am of the view that a relief by way of equity can be granted for effecting payment of the amounts as agreed upon, in a phased manner within a short period. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further steps for sale of the immovable property, subject to the condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 15.12.2010 and the balance amount of Rs.9,50,000/- in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on 15.2.2011. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further 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. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge W.P(C) No.34516 of 2010-L 4