IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35877 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.RAJAN, S/O.K.AZHANIMALA, AGED 74 YEARS, ELAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CANARA BANK,KOLLENGODE BRANCH, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP.BY CHIEF MANAGER, THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CONSTITUTED UNDER SECURITIZATION AD RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECUTIRY INTEREST ACT PIN 678 102 2. THE CANARA BANK, KOLLENGODE BRANCH, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REP.BY ITS MANAGER PIN 678 102 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 35877 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Consequent to default committed in repayment of a working capital loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, for his business purposes of rice mill, the Bank took steps to proceed against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 intimating steps taken as contemplated under Section 13 (4). 2. According to the petitioner he is a septuagenarian suffering from the disease of cancer and undergoing treatment. It is stated that he is willing to discharge the debt in easy instalments. But compliant of 2 WP(C) No. 35877/2010 the petitioner is that, without considering such requests made the respondents are proceeding with hasty steps for dispossessing the petitioner from property and for sale of the same. Hence the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to permit payment of the amount in a phased manner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the basis of instruction, submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year 1995 and there was chronic default in the loan account. It is stated that once the petitioner was allowed to settle the loan account, allowing considerable waiver under the 'One Time Settlement scheme'. But the petitioner had failed to avail such facility. It is further stated that the Bank had already obtained a decree in a civil suit filed as O.S. No. 94/2001 before Sub Court, Palakkad. Under such circumstances, the respondents are not favouring the proposal for permitting the petitioner to make payment of the amount in a phased manner. 3 WP(C) No. 35877/2010 4. It is noticed that the petitioner has not availed of the statutory remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act against the steps initiated. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tondon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110]; interference of this Court to restrain the proceedings under such circumstances is highly improper and unjustified. 5. Confronted with the above situation, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any such statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against proceedings initiated. On the other hand, limited prayer is to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability in instalmnets within a 4 WP(C) No. 35877/2010 reasonable time. 7. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance along with interest and expenses if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.12.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents seeking waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses, to the possible extent or to seek regularization of the account by paying substantial amounts towards the default. It is for the respondent Bank to consider such request if any made. 9. It is further made clear that in view of the instalment facility granted as directed above the respondents will be free to proceed with further coercive steps on the basis of Ext.1 notice, in case the petitioner fails 5 WP(C) No. 35877/2010 to remit any one of the instalment within the time stipulated. It is also made clear that relief granted above is subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc