IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29375 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RASSALAM, S/O.PACHAN NADAR, AGED 45 AJAY BHAVAN, MARADI, KANTHALLOOR, PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHAN,SC,TVM.DIST.CO.OP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ W.P.(C).NO. 29375 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd 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 (SARFAESI ACT). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of loan availed from the respondent Bank, the immovable property, which is secured asset was proceeded against. Ext.P2 is the notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. According to the petitioner, the repayment could not be affected promptly because of the unexpected failure in business and inspite of approaches made before the respondent bank seeking settlement of the arrears in phased manner, the bank has not acceded to sue a request and the coercive steps were pursued. 2. Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under the statute, I am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings on merits of the contentions. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory W.P.(C).NO. 29375 OF 2010 2 remedy and is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. The only limited prayer is to permit payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. It is noticed that, pursuant to an interim order of this Court, the petitioner had already remitted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- after filing of the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that, the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner had not taken any earnest efforts to pay off the liability, inspite of repeated demands. Therefore, the prayer for installment facility is opposed. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability within a reasonable time, in installments. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to kept in abeyance all further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, provide the petitioner to remits the entire balance outstanding along with the interest if any accruing in 6 (six) equal installments, falling due on or before 31-12-2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. W.P.(C).NO. 29375 OF 2010 3 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the installments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already issued. It is also made clear that the relief granted above is subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. It is made clear that the above directions will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the respondent bank seeking 'One Time Settlement' by waiver of any interest and in the respondent Bank, considering such request to the possible extent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pm