IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8554 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SREEKUMAR.K., KRISHNA VILASOM, CHENKALLOOR, VELIYAMCODU, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MORNING & EVENING BRANCH, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR. K.G. RADHAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 8554 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 16th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that after serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, a sum of Rs. Fifty thousand was paid on 16.01.2010 and that even though he expressed his willingness to clear the liability by way of installments, the same has not been positively considered by the Bank, who chose to proceed with further steps causing dispossession of the property, which is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the default occurred at the hands of the petitioner was never wilful and that every earnest effort is being taken to wipe out the entire liability, for which, some breathing time is sought for. W.P.(C) No. 8554 OF 2010 2 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner has to prove his bonafides by satisfying a portion of the liability on or before 31.03.2010, if at all the benefit of installment facility is to be considered in favour of the petitioner. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to provide some breathing time to the petitioner to clear the entire liability, since the petitioner has stated that he does not intend to challenge the steps taken by the respondent Bank by approaching the DRT and that the challenge raised in the Writ Petition is also intended to be given a 'go bye'. 5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of 'Rs. Fifty thousand' on or before 31.03.2010 and the balance amount shall be cleared by way of 'seven' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.04.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, the coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if W.P.(C) No. 8554 OF 2010 3 any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments/payments, as mentioned above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk