IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33483 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SMT. SARSDA.V.K. W/O. LATE.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUVANNOOKARAN HOUSE SREE DURGA TEMPLE ROAD,NEDUPUZHA.P.O. TRICHUR. 2. SOUMYA.K.R. D/O LATE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN KARUVANNOOKARAN HOUSE P.O.NEDUPUZHA. 3. BINDU VASU, W/O. VASU, KADAVIL HOUSE, P.O.PAVARATTY, VENMENAD. 4. SINDHU GOPI, W/O. LATE GOPI, CHITTILAYI HOUSE, P.O.KIZHUPPULLIKARA. 5. SANDHYA K.R. W/O. BINEESH.T.M. THEKKAYIL HOUSE P.O., NEDUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE AT KOBANK TOWERS PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE KERALA STAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE AT DORAISWAMI IYYER ROAD KOCHI-35. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R1 TO 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 33483 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). The loan in question was availed by the deceased husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 5. The borrower died in July, 2006. Contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is now pursued without issuing any notice to the legal heirs. It is stated that Ext.P3 notice had already been issued under section 13(4) taking over possession of the secured asset. 2. Since further coercive steps are threatened, inspite of various contentions raised, learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that they are confining relief to the extent of permitting payment of the entire balance within a reasonable period, in installments. 3. Standing counsel for respondent bank is not favouring in permitting any extended period on the ground WPC.33483 of 2009 : 2 : that the loan account is in chronic default. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances and submissions on both sides, I am of the opinion that eventhough interference on merits is not possible, some indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a short period, in installments. 5. Accordingly the petitioners are permitted to make payment of the entire balance outstanding, along with future interest if any liable, in 8 (eight) equal monthly installments, falling due on or before 15.1.2010 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding month. 6. It is made clear that on default in payment of any of the installments, the respondent bank will be free to proceed with further steps based on notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from subsequent challenge against raising any such proceedings, either before this court or before any other forum. ( C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) jma