IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15678 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NOUFAL.T.P., S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 40 YEARS, SUHARA MANZIL, KANHIRODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS MANAGER, KUDUKKIMOTTA BRANCH, PALLIKUNNU.P.O., KANNUR-670 004. BY SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15678 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.28.7.2010 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.24.11.2010 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE AFFIXED ON THE BUILDING AFTER LOCKING UP THE BUILDING RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.15678 of 2011-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging steps initiated by the respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed by him in repaying a loan availed from the respondent. It is stated that the property containing a shop room/godown, which is the secured asset with respect to the loan transaction, has already been taken over possession by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the building now remains locked and the petitioner is not even permitted to remove the cement bags stocked in the building in question. It is also contended that, inspite of certain payments effected, the respondent Bank is not permitting re-occupation of the building. 2. Eventhough various contentions are raised, I find no legally tenable ground to hold that the proceedings W.P(C) No.15678 of 2011-H 2 initiated is in any way illegal or irregular. Further it is noticed that, the petitioner has not availed the effective remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the Act in challenging the steps taken. Therefore, it may not be justified on the part of this court in interdicting with the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner has not taken any efforts to pay off the liability. It is further stated that the outstanding liability will be around Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest and cost due thereon. 4. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit re-occupation of the building in question, on the basis of an offer to make payment of the entire amounts due within a short time, in instalments. The said appeal is made based on an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings W.P(C) No.15678 of 2011-H 3 and that he is also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the liability in a phased manner within a short period. 6. Therefore, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to occupy the building in question and to use the same, without prejudice to legal rights of possession being retained by the respondent Bank, subject to condition of the petitioner making payment of 50% of the total amount due on or before 15.7.2011. Re-occupation as directed above shall be permitted immediately on payment of the amount as stipulated. The petitioner shall effect payment of the balance amount in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.8.2011 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will W.P(C) No.15678 of 2011-H 4 be free to proceed with further steps. 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. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab