IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14879 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.N.SURESH KUMAR, THAYYIL HOUSE, CHERUKARA P.O., KAVALAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER- 688 001. 2. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA- 688001. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, KAINADY (ALLEPPEY) BRANCH, DOOR NO.111/17, NEELAMPEROOR, KUTTANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688 506. BY ADV.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: krj C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 14879 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in repaying a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. Noticing the fact that the proceedings is only at the stage of demand under section 13(2), and also considering the statutory remedies available, this court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings in any manner. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner to relinquish all challenges raised against the proceedings and also to relinquish statutory remedy if any available to the petitioner. On the other hand, a limited relief was sought for to the extent of permitting regularisation of the account, on the basis of the contention that the loan in question was availed only in the year 2007 and the repayment period is for 20 years . WP(C).14879/2011 2 2. Heard; learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner had not cared to make payment of the monthly instalments on a regular basis. It is further submitted that the amounts overdue for payment itself will come around to Rs.2,60,000/-. 3. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that the limited relief sought for by the petitioner can be allowed subject to rights reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed with further steps in case of default. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts over due for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or before the last date of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 5. If payment of the defaulted amount is WP(C).14879/2011 3 regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, or any one of the future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the proceedings initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).14879/2011 4