IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21910 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHA CHANDRA BABU, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRA BABU, INDIRA MANDIRAM, CHANDIROOR P.O.,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER AND THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AROOR BRANCH. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1, 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 21910 of 2010 K ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a 'housing loan' of Rs.1.5 lakh from the respondent Bank, creating security interest over the property in question. The loan was actually availed for constructing a house in the year 2006, but, the repayment could not be effected on time as scheduled, allegedly because of the treatment undergone by the husband of the petitioner in connection with some cerebral disorder. The default on the part of the petitioner made the respondent Bank to declare the amount as 'NPA' and to proceed against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the default was never wilful, but because of the unforeseen circumstances involving the treatment of the husband of the petitioner as revealed from Ext.P4 'case history' issued by the Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner might be given one more opportunity to clear the arrears in respect of the defaulted WPC.21910/2010 : 2 : instalments and to regularise the loan account, so as to save the property in question. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits, on instructions, that the 'overdue' amount itself will come nearly Rs.1,41,800/-, which shows the magnitude of the default committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that unless and until the 'overdue' amount is cleared, the question of regularisation is not liable to be entertained. 4. Considering the particular circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner belongs to the lower strata of the society and further that the loan facility extended by the Bank in the Housing Sector, this Court finds that the petitioner can be given one more opportunity to clear the arrears and to get the loan account regularised. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire 'overdue' amount by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before the 10th of August, 2010, to be followed by the other instalments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months, subject to which, the loan account will stand regularised. This will be in WPC.21910/2010 : 3 : addition to the liability of the petitioner to remit the regular EMIs without fail. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in clearing the 'overdue' amount as above, or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in lumpsum. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) aks