IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28013 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHRAF.A,S/O.ABDUL RAHIM,NISHA MANZIL, MANCODU.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER(CHIEF MANAGER), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REGIONAL OFFICE V, KOLLAM-691 008. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,PUNNALA BRANCH,PUNNALA.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 706. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 28013 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was invited for a conciliation settlement in an 'Adalath' conducted by the respondent as evidenced from Ext.P4, and inspite of an offer made by the Bank to consider waiver of interest/penal interest to a considerable extent, nothing was turned out. His specific requests for settlement of the account and for granting instalment facility has not been considered. Now coercive steps is being threatened, is the complaint. 2. Against Ext.P1, the petitioner has got an effective statutory remedy to raise objections. Further the statute provides an effective remedy by way of appeal against any further coercive W.P(C) No. 28013 of 2010-B 2 steps. Therefore I am not at all inclined to entertain this writ petition on merits of the contentions. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and wiling to pay off the entire liability, less whatever amount the Bank may reduce by way of waiver of interest or penal interest. It is further submitted by learned counsel that he is not intending to pursue any statutory remedies available. Hence indulgence is sought for in the matter of permitting payment through instalments. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that since last three years the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner has not made any substantial payments inspite of repeated demands. Having considered the totality of circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time in instalments. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep further steps pursuant to Ext.P1 notice in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the entire amounts outstanding in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.10.2010 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding W.P(C) No. 28013 of 2010-B 3 months. 6. The petitioner can approach the respondent Bank after payment of the first instalment seeking waiver of interest/penal interest. If any such approach is made, the respondent will consider the same to the possible extent and shall inform the petitioner about reduction in the amount, if any made. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted based on the submission that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any further remedies and as such he is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings, either before this Court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab