IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35848 of 2008(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PURUSHOTHAMAN.T.K., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE KARUPPAN, THERATHIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY PO, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHANMUGAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL - R1 ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35848/2008 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASS BOOK. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 28/05/08. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/06/08. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE UNDER RULE 8(1). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.35848 of 2008-P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 possession notice under Rule 8 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules following proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that he is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P2 debt relief scheme as communicated as per Ext.P3. The learned counsel for the bank states that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P2 and that he has been given that benefit by crediting it to his loan account and interest portion has also been appropriately credited. After giving such credit, the total outstandings, as of now, is Rs.9.10 lacs. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground for the petitioner to still cling on, by merely holding Exts.P2 and P3. All that the WP(C)35848/08 -: 2 :- petitioner aspired is for a breathing time to pay off the outstandings since there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. 2.The petitioner was dealing with chicken. It appears that he was bringing in chicks from hatcheries outside Kerala. The unit fell with certain infections for the chicken. This is the reason why the benefit of debt relief scheme has been extended to him. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.2 lacs on or before 31-12-2008 and continues to pay at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from January, 2009, the impugned distress action will stand deferred and dropped. If there is default in paying any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefits of this judgment will stand recalled and the writ WP(C)35848/08 -: 3 :- petition will stand dismissed automatically enabling the respondents to forthwith proceed with the impugned distress action, without fresh notice to the petitioner. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/121208