IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16241 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.VISWANATHAN,V.K.BHAVAN, ETC PO, AMBALAPPURAM, KOTTARAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, KOLLAM-691 002. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER(CHIEF MANAGER) UNION BANK, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012. BY ADV.SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16241 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing 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. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in a proceedings initiated under Section 14 (1), had issued Ext.P2 notice requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2009 with repayment period extending to 10 years and the coercive steps are being pursued without acceding to his request for permitting regularisation, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts default within a short period. 2 W.P.(C).No.16241 of 2011 3. Heard ; learned counsel for the respondent Bank. It is stated that the loan account is in chronic default and the amounts remaining over due itself will come around Rs.1.45 lakhs. 4. Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, it may not be justified for this Court to interdict with. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court seeking direction to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of a specific undertaking made to the effect that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. The petitioner submits that the amounts overdue will be paid within a short period and that the petitioner will continue payment of the future monthly instalments without any default. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not called for, I am of the view that, the petitioner can be permitted to 3 W.P.(C).No.16241 of 2011 regularise the account in view of the relinquishment made and also in view of the fact that the repayment period is for 10 years. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts remaining overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.7.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months, along with payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, then the respondents should permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 4 W.P.(C).No.16241 of 2011 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any of the future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the notice already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/