IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34267 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DR.RAJAN JACOB,AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.T.JACOB,THOTTAPLACKIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY,KOTTAYAM. 2. DAISY RAJAN,AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.DR.RAJAN JACOB,THOTTAPLACKIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SMT.K.V.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES),STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REGION-III, ZONAL OFFICE,KOTTAYAM-686 002. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,MONIPPALLY BRANCH,P.B.NO.1,RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR'S BUILDINGS, REP.BY ITS MANAGER,PIN-686 636. ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R1 TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 34267 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT By virtue of Exts.P1 and P3 notices coercive steps under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the petitioners, consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by them from the respondent Bank. Immovable property which is the secured asset with respect to the loan transaction was proceeded against. It is submitted that the property in question was taken over possession by virtue of an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, in a proceedings initiated under Section 14 (1) of the Act. Limited prayer of the petitioner under the above circumstances, is to restrain respondents from proceeding with further actions for sale of the property 2 WP(C) No. 34267/2010 and to permit them to make payment of amount outstanding, in a phased manner within a reasonable time. It is stated that by virtue of Ext.P3, the Bank had proclaimed the property for sale. Hence the petitioner is seeking relief to restrain the sale proceedings. 2. It was noticed that the petitioner had not availed any of the remedies provided under the Act, at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere on merits of the matter. However, as a gesture of indulgence, finalization of any sale pursuant to Ext.P3 proclamation was directed to be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1 lakh. It is stated that the petitioner had complied with the condition. It is further stated that no sale was materialized pursuant to Ext.P3. 3. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is pointed out that the loan account was in chronic default and huge amounts are outstanding 3 WP(C) No. 34267/2010 after crediting payments made by the petitioner. The respondents are opposing the prayer for payment of the amount in instalments, since the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act is at its fag end. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the sale of the property, which was already taken over possession, can be restrained for a reasonable period, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in a phased manner. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further proceedings for sale of the property, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest if any due in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.12.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in complying with the stipulations contained above, the 4 WP(C) No. 34267/2010 respondents will be free to proceed with further steps for sale of the property. It is also made clear that the relief granted above will be subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a request for return of the movables and other articles contained in the residential building, which was already taken over possession, to any of his authorized agents, which request was not opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. Therefore it is made clear that if any person authorized by the petitioner approaching the respondents for release of such articles, the same shall be done without any further delay. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc