IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22212 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU K.K., AGED 35, S/O.KOCHUMON, KOTTEKADAN HOUSE, ANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR-680 006. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, OLLUR BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, POST BOX-I, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, S A R C, GEETHANJALI BUILDINGS, PARAMEKAVU, THRISSUR-680001. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1&2 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1&2 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 22212/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. P2. COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD.6.4.11. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22212 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks facility to pay off the amounts due in instalments. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. He submits that earlier in 2008, proceedings under the Act were initiated, which was challenged by the petitioner in a securitization application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in which, on technical grounds, the proceedings were set aside and thereafter, in 2010, the present proceedings were initiated. He points out that the bank themselves have granted the petitioner time again and again and the petitioner had been taking the bank for a ride. Therefore, according to the counsel for the bank, the intention of the petitioner is only to protract the matter as long as possible. The petitioner did not mention these facts regarding earlier proceedings in the writ petition, points out the learned counsel for the bank. 3. However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; w.p.c.22212/11 2 The petitioner shall pay the balance amount due in three equal monthly instalments starting from 1.10.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge