IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36067 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDY MATHEW ARUVICKAL HOUSE, MAKKAPPUZHA PO, MANNAMARUTHI, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER /AUTHORISED OFFICER SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,KAKKANATTU APARTMENTS, ST.PETER'S JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER SOUTH INDIAN BANK, RANNI BRANCH. ADV.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.36067 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by coercive steps initiated for dispossession from the immovable property which is the secured asset, pursuant to orders obtained by the respondent Bank from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta on invoking Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is revealed that on an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this court challenging the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. In Ext.P3 judgment this court directed the Bank to consider the application of the petitioner seeking One Time Settlement. On a further occasion in Ext.P6 judgment this court had declined to issue direction to the Bank for release of certain items of property from the mortgage, sought for by the petitioner. It is further revealed that challenging the auction under the SARFAESI Act the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal invoking the appellate remedy under Section 17(1). Infact the Tribunal had issued interim order as evidenced from W.P.(C).36067/09-C 2 Ext.P8, granting stay against further proceedings on condition of remitting some amount. It is stated that eventhough the initial amount stipulated in Ext.P8 was remitted the petitioner had failed to make payment of further amounts stipulated thereafter, and consequently the securitisation application (appeal petition) was dismissed. Now coercive steps for dispossession by the Advocate Commissioner is sought to be stayed on the basis of submission that the petitioner had effected further payments as evidenced from Ext.P10 to P12 and on the basis of the plea that he may be permitted to pay off the balance amount in further installments. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner along with his late wife had availed different loans since 2004 onwards and there was serious default in effecting repayments. The accounts were categorised as 'NPA' as early as in 2006. Eventhough proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated as early as in July 2007, as evidenced from Ext.P1, the petitioner has not taken any serious steps to pay off the entire liability. It is further contended that in view of dismissal of the securitisation application and in view of disposal of the writ petitions earlier, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner deserves no reliefs to be granted. W.P.(C).36067/09-C 3 3. Having confronted with the above situation learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is confining his prayer to the limited extent of permitting payment of the entire balance outstanding within a reasonable time. Such a prayer is made especially because of the fact that one of the items of property, possession of which is sought to be recovered, is the residential house of the petitioner. 4. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that eventhough the writ petition could not be entertained on merits, some indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability within a short period. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make payment of a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on or before 15.1.2010. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further steps for dispossession and sale of the properties till such date. If payment as directed above is made, respondents shall inform the petitioner about the net balance outstanding, after crediting all payments and after considering waiver of any amount possible. The petitioner shall continue payment of the balance amount so intimated along with future interest in 4 (four) equal monthly installments thereafter, falling due on or before 15.2.2010 and W.P.(C).36067/09-C 4 on or before 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the installments as stipulated above, the respondents will be at liberty to take further steps pursuant to the notice already issued and on 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. okb