IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15513 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.JISHIMOL, THEKKEMURIYIL, SANATHANAM WARD, CHATHANADU, ALAPPUZHA-1. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA-688011. BY ADV.SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15513 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE BANK RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15513 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the immovable property, which is a secured asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding payment. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2007 with repayment period extending to 20 years and the coercive steps are being pursued without considering request made by the petitioner to permit regularisation. 3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that, the loan in question was availed in the year 2007 to the tune of Rs.7.50 lakhs, agreeing to repay the 2 W.P.(C).No.15513 of 2011 amounts in monthly instalments extending to a period of 20 years. But the petitioner had committed consecutive defaults and the amount now overdue for payment itself will come around Rs.2,62,500/-. It is also stated that another “union comfort loan” availed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in the year 2006 is also in default and the amount due under the said account is around Rs.35,000/-. Since there is chronic default in the loan accounts, the respondent Bank is not favouring in permitting regularisation of the accounts. 4. Considering the fact that the proceedings is only at the stage of demand under Section 13(2) and also considering the effective remedy available under Section 17 (1), this Court may not be justified in interfering. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory 3 W.P.(C).No.15513 of 2011 remedy. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account considering the relinquishments of challenges made and also considering that the repayment period is for 20 years. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire amount due under the “union comfort account” within a period of 2 months from today and also make payment of the entire amounts overdue in the housing loan account (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), 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 4 W.P.(C).No.15513 of 2011 directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notice already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/