IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1473 of 2011(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BALANCHANDRAN PILLAI,PUTHUVEEDU, MANNADY,KADAMPANAD,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK, BRANCH OFFICE,ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 3. S.LETHIKA,ADVOCATE,JOHN'S COMPLEX, KUMBAZHA ROAD,PATHANAMTHITTA-691 530. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1473 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repayment of various credit facilities availed by the wife of the petitioner from the respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of starting an industrial unit in the immovable property belonging to the petitioner, which was mortgaged for securing the loan, was proceeded against by resorting to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Invoking Section 14(1), the respondents 1 and 2 had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by that court 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. W.P.(C).1473/11 -2- 2. Eventhough an effective alternative remedy is provided under the SARFAESI Act, this court entertained this petition and stayed the dispossession, through an interim order issued on 17.1.2011, insisting upon the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, which is reported to have been complied with by the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now being pursued without considering request made by the petitioner for allowing instalment facility for payment of the entire balance outstanding. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain such coercive steps. 4. Heard, counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that the period of the Over Draft facility availed by the petitioner and his wife now stands expired and neither the petitioner nor his wife has not taken any earnest efforts to pay off the liability, inspite of repeated notices issued under the SARFAESI Act. It is further stated that an amount of more than Rs.27.76 lakhs is outstanding payment in the loan accounts. W.P.(C).1473/11 -3- 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, on the basis of an appeal made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to show indulgence in permitting payment of the balance outstanding in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, since an undertaking is made to the effect that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that he is relinquishing all challenges. Hence, the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the liability in instalments within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery, subject to condition of the petitioner paying the entire amounts due including interest and expenses if any, in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, W.P.(C).1473/11 -4- 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