IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27014 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAKUNTHALA.S., W/O RAVI.D., PROPRIETOR, M/S. S.K.EXPORTS, DWARAKA, ADINADU SOUTH, KATTIL KADAVU.P.O., KARUVA, KARUNGAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, HOTEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER,/AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, HOTEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 3. THE MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KARUNAGAPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN, S.C. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27014 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) consequent to default committed in repayment of loans availed from the 1st respondent. It is stated that the petitioner had availed 3 loans under different categories, repayments of which were defaulted. The secured assets are now being proceeded against under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Ext.P4 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even after Ext.P4, some payments have been effected by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the entire overdue had been cleared payment. But the respondents are still proceeding with further coercive steps, is the contention. W.P.(C).27014/10 -2- 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that eventhough certain payments were effected, the loan accounts are still in default and the promise of the petitioner to regularise the same was not materialised. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has got various effective remedies under the statute itself to object the demand and also to challenge coercive steps if any initiated, before the appropriate appellate authority, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on merits of the allegations. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to regularise payments in the loan account and to continue repayments in future without any default, in accordance with terms of the loan agreement. Eventhough the respondent's counsel is not favouring in permitting regularisation, considering totality of circumstances attendant in this case, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to pay off the overdue amounts within a reasonable time and to continue payments on a regular basis. W.P.(C).27014/10 -3- 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep further steps pursuant to Ext.P4 notice in abeyance, on condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts overdue in all the 3 loan accounts, in two (2) monthly installments, on or before 15.9.2010 and 15.10.2010. 6. It is made clear that petitioner shall also pay the regular amounts due with respect to the months of September and October 2010 along with such payments. If the petitioner makes payment of the overdue amounts as above, the respondent Bank shall permit him to continue further repayments in the loan accounts as per the original schedule of repayment, agreed upon under the loan transactions. 7. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further coercive steps, in case there is default in payment of any of the installments. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb