IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4568 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- A.M.ANZAR, S/O.ABDUL MAHMOOD, AGED 39 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.KURUMPELIL AVENUE, TC-12/2744, POLAYATHODU, KOLLAM-691021. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, KOLLAM, PIN-691001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, R.S.BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, OPP.COLLEGE GROUND, ERNAKULAM-682011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 4568 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset for the loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The loan in question was availed for construction of a multi storied shopping complex. Consequent to default committed, steps under section 13(4) has already been initiated. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that he is intending to let out considerable area in the shopping complex to various multi national Companies and is expecting to get monthly income by way of lease to the tune of around Rs.30 lakhs. Based on the said contention the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent Bank to consider his request for re-scheduling of the loan. 3. By virtue of an interim order issued on 17.2.2011 WP(C).4568/2011 2 this court had granted stay against dispossession of the petitioner, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on or before 5.3.2011. Subsequently the time stipulated for payment was extended till 30.3.2011. According to the petitioner an amount of Rs.45 lakhs has already been paid, Rs.25 lakhs in cash and Rs.20 lakhs through Demand Draft. 4. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy and also considering the nature of the relief sought for, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can approach the appropriate authority in the respondent Bank with a request for re-schedulement of the loan in question. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that, if any such approach is made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, further proceedings shall not be pursued by the respondent Bank without considering such request and taking an appropriate decision thereof. 5. It is made clear that considering the non publication of notice under section 13(4) due to pendency of this writ petition respondents are permitted to issue fresh notice under section 13(4) and to take needful steps for publication of WP(C).4568/2011 3 the same, in case the loan account is not re-scheduled. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/