IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13690 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K. VIDHYADHARAN JAIN, KOTTAKKAKATHU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NIRMALA JAIN. 2. NIRMALA JAIN, W/O.K. VIDHYADHARAN JAIN, KOTTAKKAKATHU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, SRI.R.RANJITH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAJESWARI COMPLEX, PERUNNAI, CHANGANASSERRY, KOTTAYAM, 688 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER). 2. THE MANAGER, STAT BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVALLA BRANCH, MALLIKATHU BUILDING, M.C. ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, 689 645. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13690 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioners are husband and wife. They availed a housing loan to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs from the respondent Bank, during the year 2006. Consequent to default committed in effecting regular repayment of the monthly instalments, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. As intimated through Ext.P3, the immovable property , which is the secured asset was taken over possession symbolically as contemplated under Section 13(4). 2. According to the petitioners, the coercive steps were pursued without taking into consideration of various payments effected and also without acceding to the request made by them to permit payment of the amounts in default, within a reasonable period. 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year 2006 with a repayment period extending to 15 years. But the petitioners have defaulted consecutive payments of monthly instalments. It is submitted that the total arrears outstanding is Rs.34 lakhs. It is further mentioned that the amount overdue for W.P.(C).13690/11 -2- payment (defaulted payments) itself will come to around Rs.7 lakhs. Since the account is in chronic default the respondents are not favouring in permitting regularisation. 4. Considering availability of the effective statutory remedy, this court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of offer that the defaulted amounts will be cleared payment within a short period. It is further undertaken that the petitioner are relinquishing all challenges and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited prayed now made, I am of the view that, eventhough interference of merits is not warranted, indulgence ca be shown in permitting regularisation. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire amounts remaining overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.6.2011 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months, along with payment of regular EMIs due for the respective months. W.P.(C).13690/11 -3- 7. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularised 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, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb