IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29842 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL SALAM, ENTHRAN KANDY HOUSE, NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, CHEROOTTY ROAD BRANCH, KOZHIKODE-673 524. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, FORT ROAD, KANNUR, CAMP: KOZHIKODE-673 524. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.29842 of 2010-E ---------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the guarantor with respect to a loan availed by one Sri.Subair for the purpose of his business concern M/s.Aveeyem Hardware. The finance assistance in question is an overdraft facility availed in the year 2006, for which immovable property belonging to the petitioner was mortgaged. Due to default committed by the borrower, the Bank categorised the loan as NPA and recovery steps under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was pursued. When notice for taking over possession of the property was issued as contemplated under Section 13(4), the petitioner had approached the Bank submitting Ext.P4 representation expressing willingness to settle the loan account by selling another property having an extent of 1.5 Acres situated at Kinaloor. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering such requests coercive steps are now being pursued. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted W.P(C) No.29842 of 2010-E 2 that there was serious default in payment of the amount availed under the facility, and the bank had shown indulgence in restructuring the defaulted amounts in the year 2009. The borrower was permitted to make payment of the entire amount outstanding in monthly instalments of Rs.1,00,000/- each. But still the default was committed and hence proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that interference to restrain further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was not at all warranted since the borrower had committed chronic default. If the petitioner is interested in saving the property from being sold, it is for him to take effective steps to wipe off the liability. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that effective steps will be taken up to wipe off the liability, provided the bank considers the request made under Ext.P4. It is for the petitioner to pursue such remedies before the appropriate authority under the respondents. 4. Under the above circumstances,the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider Ext.P4 and take an appropriate decision thereof, provided the petitioner remits a W.P(C) No.29842 of 2010-E 3 sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 30.10.2010. Needless to say that further coercive steps of recovery shall be kept in abeyance till such time. 5. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall abide by any decision, which will be taken by the fourth respondent on the basis of Ext.P4 and it will be intimated to the petitioner before proceeding with further steps. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab