IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 33353 of 2010(T) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VIJAYALEKSHMI, W/O.RATHEESH, AGED 42 YEARS, VELLARAMKUNNU, 0LLUR, TRICHUR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK, OLLUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306. 3. THE DIRECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306. R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 33353/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE PASS BOOK OF LOAN ACCOUNT NO.1413. P2: COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE PASS BOOK OF LOAN ACCOUNT NO.1560. P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASS BOOK OF LOAN A/C. NO.1413 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS.20,000/- P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33353 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner along with her husband had availed two housing loans from the respondent Bank, during the year 2008. The loans in question were agreed to be repaid within a period of 168 months. Consequent to default committed in effecting regular payments of the monthly instalments, proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), by issuing Ext.P4 notice as contemplated under Section 13(2). 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were threatened without considering the request made for permitting regularisation of the accounts. 3. Through an interim order issued by this Court on 11.2.2011, steps for dispossession of the petitioner from the property was stayed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks thereof. It 2 W.P.(C).No.33353 of 2010 is stated that the conditions stipulated has already been complied with. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that, the loan accounts are in chronic default and the petitioner had failed to make payment of consecutive monthly instalments. 4. Considering the fact that, the proceedings are only at the stage of issuing demand under Section 13(2) and also considering the effective remedy provided under Section 17(1), this Court may not be justified in interdicting with the matter at present. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation of the accounts on the basis of an offer made to clear payment of amounts in default within a short period. Such a request is made on the basis of a specific undertaking that, the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited prayer, I am of the view 3 W.P.(C).No.33353 of 2010 that, even though interference on merits is not possible, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account in view of the relinquishments made and also in view of the fact that the repayment period is for 168 months. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P4 notice, provided the petitioner makes payment of the amounts in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in both the loan accounts, in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to make payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in 4 W.P.(C).No.33353 of 2010 payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the notices already issued, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/