IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23989 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAMKUTTY Y., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.YOVEL, THENGUVILAKATHU VEEDU, MULLILAVUVILA, KUDAYAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REJI SAM, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SAMKUTTY Y., THENGUVILAKATHU VEEDU, MULLILAVUVILA, KUDAYAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.VENUGOPAL SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION II, ZONAL OFFICE, KSHB BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ADV.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23989/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1393/99 DTD.23.7.99. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.6.1.11. P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.21.3.2011. P4. COPY OF THE e-mail. P5. COPY OF THE M.C.NO.325/2011. P6. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.26.7.11. P7. COPY OF THE POST CARD DTD.24.8.11. P8. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.16.8.2011. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 23989 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondent for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioners. The petitioners only seek facility to regularise the loan account by paying the defaulted amounts and to pay the future instalments as per the original loan agreement. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the bank submitting that after availing of the loan on 15.1.2008, the petitioner has not paid any amount till filing of the writ petition and it is only after filing of the writ petition the petitioner has paid an amount of ` 95,000/-. Therefore, the bank is not willing to agree for regularisation of the loan account, is the contention raised. 3. In view of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer for payment of the amounts due in instalments. This is also opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. 4. However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioners shall pay the balance amounts due in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.10.2011. Every subsequent 2 instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioners pay the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioners commit default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondent to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge