IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15450 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- VIJAYAMMA, W/O. ANGELOS , AGED 48 YEARS VIJAYAVILASAM, THEKKEMURI, TWO ROAD , EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SYNDICATE BANK, KUNDARA BRANCH, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MANAGER 691 501. ADV. SRI.N.RAJENDRAN, SC, SYNDICATE BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.15450/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15450 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The immovable property, which is a secured asset, was proceeded against by invoking Section 14(1) of the Act and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the property. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the loan in question was availed in the year 2004 with a repayment period extending to 10 years, which will expire only in 2014. It is further contended that, the coercive steps are now 2 W.P.(C).No.15450 of 2011 being pursued without acceding to the request made by the petitioner to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts in default in a phased manner, within a short period. 3. Heard ; standing counsel appearing for the respondents. It is stated that the loan account is in serious default and the petitioner had not cared to make payment of any amounts, despite repeated demands. It is further contended that, the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act is at a stage of taking over possession of the secured asset and any interference at this stage will cause prejudice to the creditor Bank. However, it is submitted that the amount remaining overdue (defaulted payments) will come to around Rs.82,000/- only. 4. Considering the remedy provided under Section 17 (1), it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel made an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that she is relinquishing rights if any 3 W.P.(C).No.15450 of 2011 available to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand, a limited prayer is made to permit regularisation on the basis of an offer that the defaulted amount will be cleared payment within a short period. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not called for, I am of the view that, regularisation can be permitted in view of the stipulations contained in the Master Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India, creating obligation on the part of the creditors to re-classify the debt as performing assets, once the default is cleared. In the case at hand, there is a clear relinquishment of the challenges. Therefore, I am of the view that, equitable relief can be extended in permitting regularisation. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property in question, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts remaining overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in 4 W.P.(C).No.15450 of 2011 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.8.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is cleared as directed above, then 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 future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/