IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 6913 of 2011(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PERUMAL S., S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, ANNAI ILLAM, MOOTHANMUDY ESTATE, PALLIVASAL P.O., MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THEKKUMKAL BUILDINGS, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNDER THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, REGIONAL OFFICE, THEKKUMKAL BUILDINGS, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., MUNNAR BRANCH, MUNNAR-685 612. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SRI.L.RAM MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 6913 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 23/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6913 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The default committed by the petitioner in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank had resulted in initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The immovable property, which is a secured asset, was proceeded against as per Ext.P1 notice, issued intimating the steps taken as contemplated under section 13(4) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now been pursued without considering his request to permit to pay off the liability in instalments. It is contended that property worth far excess than the amounts due to the Bank is attempted to be dispossessed and sold, audit will cause severe prejudice to the petitioner. 3. Heard ; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. On instructions received, it is submitted 2 W.P.(C).No.6913 of 2011 that, the amount outstanding in the loan account as on today is around Rs.9,10,000/-. It is submitted that since the loan account is in serious default, the Bank is not favouring in permitting any extended period for payment of the balance outstanding. 4. Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1), it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interdict with. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, subject to an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke any statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, indulgence can be shown in permitting payment of the balance amount in instalments, especially in view of the relinquishments made by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further 3 W.P.(C).No.6913 of 2011 coercive steps initiated for dispossession and sale of the property pursuant to Ext.P1, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance along with interest and expenses if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.8.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, then the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/