IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2011/2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WPC.No. 7732 of 2011 (N) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------- SMT. BONAMMA, W/O. P.W.IGNATIUS, PANACKAL PARAKKAL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA NORTH, PARAVUR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGALI BRANCH, PALAKKAD - 678 851. BY SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH,SC,SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No. 7732 of 2011 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.No.414/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7732 of 2011-N ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Ext.P5 is the notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 intimating steps taken as contemplated under Section 13(4). It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P5 notice the petitioner was dispossessed from the immovable property, which is the secured asset, on 5.2.2011. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the Bank had instituted a suit which is pending disposal and therefore the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was not justified. Further contention is that the proceedings now initiated is barred by limitation considering the provisions contained in Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. Heard; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year W.P(C) No.7732 of 2011-N 2 1998 with repayment period of 15 years. Therefore the contention regarding limitation is refuted. It is stated that the loan account is in chronic default and the amount outstanding payment is more than Rs.2.91 lakhs as on 10.12.2010. 4. Considering the alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act and also considering the contentions raised by the respondents, I am not at all inclined to entertain this writ petition on the merits of the contentions. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that, despite the contentions raised, he is limiting the relief to the extent of permitting re-possession of the property, on the basis of an offer made to make payment of considerable amount immediately. He also undertakes that the petitioner is relinquishing challenges raised and also relinquishing rights if any to invoke statutory remedy. The petitioner only seeks indulgence for permitting payment of balance amount, in a phased manner within a reasonable time. 5. Considering the facts, I am of the view that the limited prayer made by the petitioner can be considered in view of the relinquishment of challenges. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all W.P(C) No.7732 of 2011-N 3 further coercive steps of recovery and to permit re-occupation of the residential house by the petitioner for the purpose of residence of his family, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on or before 15.4.2011. If payment is made as directed above and re-occupation is permitted, the petitioner shall wipe off the balance liability in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments thereafter, falling due on or before 15.5.2011 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months. 6. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondent Bank seeking rectification of mistake if any in the calculation of interest or seeking waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of the amounts as stipulated, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that if the petitioner makes any default in payment of any one of the instalments of the balance amount, the respondents will be entitled to dispossess the occupation, without recourse to any legal proceedings, if necessary with the assistance of the police authorities having jurisdiction in the local area or with the aid of W.P(C) No.7732 of 2011-N 4 the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in proceedings under Section 14(1). 8. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. 9. The direction contained in this judgment will not stand in the way of respondents considering any request for one time settlement by allowing waiver if any possible. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.7732 of 2011-N 5