IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22384 of 2009(P) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.NAZAR,KINAKOOL HOUSE,P.O.IRIKKUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, SOUTH BAZAR,TALAP,KANNUR. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KOZHIKODE REGIONAL OFFICE,COLOMBO COMPLEX,M.M.ALI ROAD,KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R1, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) .NO. 22384 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner, who is a PWD contractor, had availed credit facility from the 1st respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs, during 2004. The loan was sanctioned for a period of one year, which expired. Since the petitioner defaulted repayments, the Bank initiated steps under the SARFAESI Act and Ext.P1 notice under Section 13(2) was issued. Eventhough the petitioner had approached the respondents seeking time for clearing payment of the balance, such request was not acceded to. Hence the writ petition. 2. Since the proceedings is only under the stage of notice under Section 13(2), interfearance of this Court is not at all warranted, in view of the fact that the petitioner has got a right of appeal under Section 17(1), W.P(C) .NO. 22384 OF 2009 2 against further steps if any persued. 3. There exist dispute with respect to correctness of the balance amount demanded. According to the respondents the amount reflected in Ext.P2 statement is not the correct balance, but as on 31.10.09, the total outstanding is Rs.25,38,303/-. 4. Having confronted with non-maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is confining his prayer only to the limited extend of permitting payment of the entire liability within a reasonable period, in instalments. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer on the ground that the loan amount is in chronic default. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions on both sides, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown in granting a chance to the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a short period, in instalments. 6. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing petitioner to make payment of sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 31.1.2010. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act till such date. If the amount as directed above is paid, then the respondents W.P(C) .NO. 22384 OF 2009 3 shall issue a statement to the petitioner showing the net balance outstanding, after crediting all payments made and after considering waiver of interest /penal interest and expenses, to the possible extent. The petitioner shall continue payment of the balance amount so intimated, along with future interest, in 5 equal monthly instalments thereafter, starting from 28.2.2010 on or before the last day of the succeeding month. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the amounts as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notice already issued, and on any such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any further challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mns