IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7435 of 2008(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THOMAS CHACKO,S/O. KOSHY CHACKO A2-PRS GRACE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER) STATE BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA STATUE BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC FOR SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7435 OF 2008 I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the challenge is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Though initially there were two loans, one availed of by the petitioner for Rs.2 lakhs and the other availed of by his sister for Rs.2 lakhs, the proceedings initiated is in relation to the loan availed of by the petitioner. 2. The loan was availed of in 1998 and on account of the defaults that were committed, the account was classified as N.P.A. on 30.4.1999. The bank filed a suit which resulted in Ext. P1 judgment and decree on the strength of which, it is stated, execution was filed in 2002which also did not yield to any recovery of the amount. Finally, notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 14.1.2006 to which there was no objection raised. Notice under W.P.(C) No. 7435 OF 2008 -2- Section 13(4) is stated to have been issued on 16.6.2006 and on completion of the procedural formalities the property was notified for sale on 16.7.2007. It is stated that even at that stage promise of settlement was made and therefore the sale was adjourned. Since nothing materialised, the bank has now re-issued the sale notice on 11.2.2008 and this notice is Ext. P5. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the liability is Rs.12.5 lakhs. 3. From the facts as noticed above, this is a case of chronic default and the petitioner is not serious in discharging the liability. It would appear that the petitioner is more concerned about getting statement of accounts for which requests were made as per Exts. P2 to P4. Whatever be the default that was committed, when a defaulter seeks a statement of account to know what exactly his liability is, the bank certainly is bound to provide. This the bank shall do as expeditiously as possible. 4. However, in view of the facts that were transpired in the past I do not think that the petitioner deserves any further indulgence in so far as the recovery is concerned. At this stage, counsel offers to make a substantial payment before 31.3.2008. It is directed that if the petitioner makes a payment of Rs.5 lakhs W.P.(C) No. 7435 OF 2008 -3- before 31.3.2008 the bank will adjourn the sale. The balance amount will be paid by the petitioner in 5 equal monthly instalments, the first of which will be payable in the first week of May, 2008 and the subsequent instalments will be payable in the first week of every succeeding month. It is clarified that any default is committed in paying any one of the instalments as indicated above, the bank will be free to continue the action that they have already initiated without further notice. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-