IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3279 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S THAMPIS GROUP OF BUSINESS THAMPIS ARCADE, ARYASALA, CHALAI, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, V.THAMPI, SHIJU NIVAS, MUKATHALA, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, SWASTIK CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.3279 of 2011-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the immovable property, which was mortgaged for securing various credit facilities availed from the respondent Bank. It is evident from Ext.P5 that the respondent had already taken steps as contemplated under Section 13(4) and symbolic possession of the property was taken over. Contention of the petitioner is that the coercive steps were initiated without considering request made to permit payment of the overdue amounts for regularisation of the account. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that, the petitioner firm had availed three facilities viz; a cash credit W.P(C) No.3279 of 2011-H 2 a mortgage loan and secured credit. It is further mentioned that the cash credit facility is remaining classified as 'NPA' and the term of the said facility stands already expired. It is further stated that the amount outstanding under that facility is around Rs.179.91 lakhs. With respect to the mortgage loan as well as the secured credit an amount of Rs.39.66 lakhs and 20.11 lakhs respectively, are in default (overdue for payment). Under the above circumstances, contention of the respondent is that unless the petitioner clear payment of the said amounts due in all the three facilities, the steps initiated under the SARFAESI Act could not be restrained. 3. Considering availability of an effective alternative remedy, as provided under Section 17(1), this Court is not justified in interfering with the steps now proceeded against. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, having been confronted with the above situation, made a submission that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings as well as rights if any available to pursue statutory remedy. On the other hand a W.P(C) No.3279 of 2011-H 3 limited prayer is made to permit the petitioner to pay off the liability in the cash credit facility in a phased manner within a short period, as well as to permit regularisation of the other two accounts by payment of the amounts in default within a short time. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the limited prayer made. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the properties, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amount due along with future interest if any, in the cash credit facility account in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on before the last day of succeeding months. The petitioner shall also regularise the other two accounts (mortgage loan and secured credit) by paying the amounts overdue (monthly instalments in default along with interest and expenses if any due) in 6 (six) equal W.P(C) No.3279 of 2011-H 4 monthly instalments, along with payment of regular instalments due on the respective months, starting from 28.2.2011 onwards and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. If payment of the defaulted amounts is regularised in the two accounts as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in those two accounts, in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or default inpayment of any one of the future monthly instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of notices already issued. It is made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab