IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17605 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER): --------------- NISSAR, VAZHAVILAYIL VEEDU, PALLISSERIKKAL P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. B.S.ANUP, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. (CMP NO.3523 OF 2010 CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM). ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO.17609 OF 2010. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C) Nos.17605/2010 & 17609/2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issues involved in both the cases, preferred by the two different petitioners are rather similar, involving in two different housing loans extended by the respondent Bank on the basis of the security interest created over the property in question. In spite of the assurance and undertaking, the petitioners could not satisfy the regular monthly instalments in time; under which circumstances, the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, declaring the accounts as NPA, which is under challenge in these Writ Petitions. 2. When the matters came up for consideration before this Court on 7.6.2010, coercive proceedings were intercepted on condition that the petitioner in the former case deposited a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as specified and the petitioner in the latter case deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards the overdue amount. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earnest efforts are being pursued to have the entire overdue amount cleared and to have the loan account regularised. 4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that W.P(C) Nos.17605/2010 & 17609/2010 2 the 'overdue' amount in the former case ie. W.P(C) No.17605 of 2010 is Rs.2,70,000/-, whereas the 'overdue' amount in the other case is Rs.1,80,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 'overdue' has been substantially brought down by virtue of the deposits made, pursuant to the interim order and that the entire overdue amount will be cleared forthwith, at any rate within one month, simultaneously adding that the petitioners will continue to effect regular EMIs without fail. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioners are to be given an opportunity to have the loan account regularised. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to clear the remaining 'overdue' amount within one month, on which event, the loan accounts shall stand regularised. This will be over and above the liability of the petitioners to satisfy the regular EMIs. It is made clear that, in case of any failure to pay the 'overdue' amount as above, or if any two consecutive defaults are made in remitting the regular EMIs, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab