IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH APRIL 2009 / 25TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 12354 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VARGHESE.N.S., S/O.SKARIA, NEELIYANICKAL HOUSE, SOUTH PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. ALICE VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE, NEELIYANICKAL HOUSE, SOUTH PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K. UTHUPPACHAN SRI.JAISON PALIYIL SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PAMPADY BRANCH, PAMPADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.12354 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1, a notice issued by the respondent invoking the powers under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2. The petitioners submit that on receipt of Ext.P1, they made Ext.P2 objection and that without considering the same, further action is being initiated. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent rightly points out that admittedly as on date, 41 instalments are in default. This factual position is not in dispute, and the dispute is only regard to the actual extent of the amount that is due. 3. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioners are confessed defaultors, I cannot find fault with the Bank in initiating steps under the Securitisation Act. Further, in Ext.P2 also no substantial contention has been raised. If that be so, I cannot also find fault with the Bank in not passing orders in the light of WP(C) No.12354/2009 -2- Ext.P2. In view of the aforesaid, factual position, Ext.P1 and the impugned action taken thereunder, deserve to be upheld and I do so. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are willing to discharge the defaulted liability in instalments and that on that basis, the Bank be directed to regularise their loan account. 5. If as stated by the petitioners, they can discharge the liability, there is no reason why the Bank should not favorably consider the request. Taking into account the submissions made by both sides in regard to the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioners, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- That the entire amount in default shall be paid by the petitioners in four equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30/04/2009, and the remaining instalments shall be paid on or before the 30th day of every succeeding month. It is directed that along with the 4th instalment, it will be open to the petitioners to make an application for regularisation of the loan, in which case, the Bank shall consider the same and pass orders WP(C) No.12354/2009 -3- thereon. Subject to the payments as above, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 will be kept in abeyance. It is clarified that if default is committed in making payment of any one of the instalments, the Bank will be free to continue the proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg