IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11886 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DR.V.J.GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, VELLIYANIKAL HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT.ANNIE GRACY, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.DR.V.J.GEORGE, VELLIYANIKAL HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.ANJANA SRI.A.M.NASEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TRICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682035. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MARINE DRIVE BRANCH, HIGH COURT JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682031. BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.11886 of 2011-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioners in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank, coercive steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Through Ext.P3, the property in question was sought to be taken over possession. According to the petitioners the steps under the SARFAESI Act was pursued without acceding to their request for permitting regularisation. 2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year 2008 and the repayment period is extending to seven years. The petitioners defaulted payment of the instalments consecutively and even the amount remaining overdue for payment itself is more than W.P(C) No.11886 of 2011-I 2 Rs.51,500/-. 3. Considering availability of effective statutory remedy, it is not justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation by offering payment of the defaulted amount within a short time. Such an appeal is made on the basis of a further undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges and that they are relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 4. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the account. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the amount remaining overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with W.P(C) No.11886 of 2011-I 3 interest and expenses if any due), in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before 31.5.2011, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 6. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will 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