IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36259 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANKUNTHALA S., W/O.RAVI D., PROPRIETOR, M/S.S.K.EXPORTERS, DWARAKA, ADINADU SOUTH, KATTIL KADAVU P.O., KARUVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014. 3. THE MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.36259 of 2010-F ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Coercive steps initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a loan availed from the respondents, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion and in Ext.P2 judgment the petitioner was permitted to regularise the account by paying the amount in default in two equal monthly instalments, which was directed to be paid on or before 15.9.2010 and 15.10.2010. According to the petitioner, in compliance with the judgment, he had remitted the amount due on 15.9.2010 and on 15.10.2010, as evidenced from Exts.P3 and P4. However, it is conceded that there occurred failure in payment of the balance amount in accordance with the original schedule of repayment, and the respondents have now W.P(C) No.36259 of 2010-F 2 initiated steps as contemplated under Section 13(4) on issuing Ext.P5 notice. 3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P2 judgment. Eventhough, certain amounts were paid, she had not discharged payment of the entire outstanding arrears. It is further submitted that, as on today an amount of around Rs.1,30,0000/- is in default. It is also submitted that considerable amounts are outstanding payment as total balance due in the loan account. 4. Considering the fact that this Court had shown sufficient indulgence in granting equitable relief to the petitioner, I am not inclined to consider this writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedies nor she is challenging the SARFAESI proceedings in any manner. On the other hand, a limited prayer is raised to permit three months time to pay off the liability with a view of save the immovable property being sold. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that one more chance can be granted to the W.P(C) No.36259 of 2010-F 3 petitioner to pay off the liability, since the petitioner had effected substantial payments after Ext.P2 judgment. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps of dispossession and sale of the property, provided the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.1,30,0000/- on or before 24.12.2010 and on remitting the entire balance due under the loan account on or before 28.2.2011. 6. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps in case there is any default in complying with the stipulations mentioned above. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab