IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29777 of 2011(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- VIJAYAN N.K., S/O.KUMARAN, NALUMAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VELAPPAYA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, TUDA BUILDING, SAKTHAN ARCADE, THRISSUR, TRISSUR DIST.-680 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, EYESEES BUILDING, POST PUZHAKIL, THRISSUR DIST.- 680555. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 29777 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.11-5-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF BOTH THE LOANS AVAILDED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIODS 1-10-2010 TO 2-11-2011. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DT.15-9-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.11-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29777 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed of a loan from the 2nd respondent bank. The petitioner also availed of an overdraft facility. Both fell in arrears. The respondents initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks facility of regularise the accounts and to continue payment in accordance with the agreements executed in that regard. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the bank submits that the loan was availed of for running a dry cleaning unit. The machinery purchased for the unit was hypothecated to the bank. The petitioner, without knowledge of the bank, sold off the machinery. The unit is also not functioning, is his contention. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the bank is not in a position to agree for regularisation. W.P.(C)No.29777/11 2 3. After having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay off the amounts due under both the accounts in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.12.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any one of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.29777/11 3 W.P.(C)No.29777/11 4