IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37709 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- O.A.ANWAR, S/O.ALI, AGED 29 YEARS, OTHALAKUZHI HOUSE, VENNALA.P.O., KOCHI-682 028. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR, SRI.E.D.GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH – 682 012. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH – 682 012. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 37709 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is the notice issued intimating taking over possession of the property, as contemplated under section 13(4) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were being pursued without considering the request made by him to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer for payment of the amounts in default. 2. Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year 2005 with a repayment period of 180 months. It is further submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the arrears overdue as defaulted amount itself will come around Rs.96,800/-. WP(C) .37709/2010 2 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to avail the statutory remedy provided under section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act , it is not proper or just for this court to interfere with the proceedings. 4. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges. On the other hand , the limited prayer is only to permit the petitioner to regularise the account within a reasonable time . 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am inclined to allow the petitioner to regularise the account in view of the fact that the loan in question was availed in the year 2005 and the period of repayment is 180 months. It is also considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts in default in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on or before WP(C) .37709/2010 3 the last day of the two succeeding months. Petitioner shall also also make payment of the regular instalments due with respect to the months concerned along with the above said payments. 7. If payment of the amount in default is cleared, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, or any of the future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to Ext.P2 notice already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .37709/2010 4