IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14245 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SAJEEV.V., POIKATHADATHIL VEEDU, EDKKIDAM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. 2. SINDHU SAJEEV, POIKATHADATHIL VEEDU, EDKKIDAM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. 3. SARADA, POIKATHADATHIL VEEDU, EDKKIDAM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM SRI.GEORGE BRISTON SMT.C.A.SEENA SRI.V.P.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KUNDARA BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 691 511. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.14245/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD. 26.2.2011 VIDE CMP.1012/2011 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM. P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 19.4.2011 EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF RS. 2 LAKHS. P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 6.5.2011 EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF RS. 2 LAKHS. P4:- COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS STATEMENT ISSUED ON 19.5.2011. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS DT.D NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.14245 of 2011-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioners in repaying a housing loan availed 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 the secured asset, was proceeded against by the respondent Bank by invoking Section 14(1). The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property and Ext.P1 notice was issued by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that even after receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the petitioners had remitted a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and the balance is only around Rs.2.5 lakhs. Inspite of request made by the petitioners to permit payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, the coercive steps are now being pursued. W.P(C) No.14245 of 2011-E 2 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that, after crediting all payments made, the balance outstanding is more than Rs.2.39 lakhs. Since a major portion of the loan amount has already been paid and since the borrower had lost his job abroad, the respondent Bank is not favouring in regularising the account or permitting any extended period for payment of the balance amount. 4. Considering the alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the Act, scope for interference by this Court is very limited. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner within a reasonable time, subject to an undertaking that the petitioners are not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the view that, the petitioners can be permitted to pay off the balance amount in instalments W.P(C) No.14245 of 2011-E 3 within a reasonable time. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire balance amount due along with interest and expenses if any, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.8.2011 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the recovery proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab