IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 37669 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SMT. KOCHUTHRESIA, MANJALI NAYATHODAN HOUSE, P.O. ELANJIPARA, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.VATHSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UCO BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH CLOTH BAZAAR ROAD, COCHIN-31. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UCO BANK, ZONAL BRANCH, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-31 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE,SC FOR UCO BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37669 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner along with others have availed a term loan to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs, from the 1st respondent Bank, by mortgaging the immovable property belonging to the petitioner. Consequent to default committed in regular payment of monthly instalments, steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the immovable property mortgaged. The petitioner had challenged the steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Act by filing S.A. No.597/2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal had granted an interim stay subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.4 lakhs on or before 27.11.2010. According to the petitioner, she could not fully comply with the condition stipulated and as a consequence the interim stay was vacated, inspite of request for extension made by the petitioner. This writ petition is filed apprehending coercive steps for dispossession from the property wherein she is residing. It is contended that the petitioner is an aged lady having no source of income. However, it was contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of the amounts due in a phased W.P.(C).37669/10 -2- manner, in order to save the property from being sold. 2. Considering pendency of the statutory appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, this court may not be justified in entertaining this writ petition. However, on the basis of an undertaking made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal will be withdrawn, further steps for dispossession was directed to be kept in abeyance subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The condition stipulated was already complied with. Subsequently the interim order was extended insisting upon payment of further sum of Rs.2 lakhs, which was also paid, according to the learned counsel. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.2121/2011 it is mentioned that the securitisation application, which was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.1.2011. Under the above circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner makes an appeal to permit payment of the entire balance amount in instalments, within a reasonable time, on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges. 4. Heard, counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was W.P.(C).37669/10 -3- initiated as early as in April 2010 and the petitioner was continuously making attempts to protract the matter without effecting payment of any considerable amounts. It is submitted that the balance outstanding as on 31.3.2010 was more than Rs.17 lakhs. It is the contention that even after crediting payments already made, there will be substantial amounts due. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner made a plea to permit her to make payment of the balance in instalments, from May 2011 onwards. However, considering history of the matter as narrated above, this court may not be justified in showing indulgence to keep the matter stayed for any further time. But, at the same time, I am of the view that considering relinquishment of challenges and withdrawal of the securitisation application, the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in monthly instalments. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. W.P.(C).37669/10 -4- 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb