IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16223 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BENNY JOHN, S/O. YOHANNAN, PONTHENGAL HOUSE, CHAMAMPATHAL P.O, VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR. DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, PONKUNNAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHANGANASSERY TALUK. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. R.S. KALKURA, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16223 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that, undue haste has been shown by the respondent Bank in resorting to the coercive proceedings against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act when the petitioner turned to be a defaulter in remitting the installments in respect of the 'housing loan' availed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite the adverse circumstances, the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the defaulted arrears within no time and further that his loan account may be permitted to be regularized so as to save his residential building. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that, there is some misrepresentation at least in the Writ Petition, in so far as the petitioner contends that he is having absolutely no income and is a 'coolie worker'; where as, while availing the loan, he had stated that he was employed as a Peon in a School. It is not clear whether the petitioner is still having the employment as aforesaid, as there are no materials on record, to ascertain the actual position in this regard. Anyhow, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the above contention, for the time being. WP (C) No. 16223 of 2009 : 2 : 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly as to the submission made from the part of the Bank that more than a sum of Rs. 65,000/- plus incidental expenses is in arrears towards the defaulted EMI, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on or before the 10th of July 2009 and another sum of Rs.40,000/- on or before the 30th of July, 2009. It is also made clear that, if any further amount to be defaulted extent is needed to have the loan account regularized, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner, upon which the petitioner will have to remit the said amount as well, within a further period of 2 weeks. On such circumstances, the 'housing loan' of the petitioner shall stand regularized and the petitioner will be bound to effect the regular EMI as well. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting any of the remittances towards the defaulted arrears as mentioned above, or if any two consecutive defaults in respect of the regular EMIs are made, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd