IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32117 of 2010(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.ARAVINDAKSHAN,S/O.NATESAN,DEEPA BHAVAN,KANNAMBA , VARKALA,PIN 695 141. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, RAVIS ARCADE,NEAR IRON BRIDGE,KOLLAM 691 013, REP.BY AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, VARKALA, REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER, PIN 695 141. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32117 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 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. Symbolic possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was taken over on issuing Ext.P5 notice. According to the petitioner, he had remitted various amounts even after initiation of the proceedings and request made by him for permitting payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, was not allowed. Since coercive steps are being pursued, this writ petition is filed seeking to restrain such steps. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that repayment period of the housing loan stands already expired as on 25.2.2010 and the request of the petitioner for permitting payment in W.P.(C).32117/10-L -2- installments could not be allowed. It is submitted that an amount of around Rs.2.75 lakhs is still due, as total outstanding, along with interests due thereon. The petitioner disputes correctness of the balance outstanding. 3. Considering the effective statutory remedy available against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, I am of the view that this writ petition could not be entertained for considering merits of the contentions. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies, except the dispute regarding correctness of the balance. Under such circumstances the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this court in permitting payment of the entire outstanding in a phased manner. I am of the considered view that the limited relief sought for in this regard can be granted. 4. In the result, the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to Ext.P5 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest if any accrued in future, in 6 (six) equal monthly installments, falling due on or before 30.11.2010 W.P.(C).32117/10-L -3- and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 5. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Bank seeking clarification regarding correctness of the amount outstanding and if any such approach is made the respondent will furnish him with details of the statement of accounts. Needless to say that the Bank will be at an obligation to correct genuine mistakes if any pointed out. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the installments as directed above the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps on the basis of the notices already issued, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb