IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30380 of 2010(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HARSHANA.S.A,HOUSE NO.VI/614,BAZAR ROAD,MATTANCHERRY,KOCHI-682 002. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,DANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS, IST FLOOR,NEAR A.R.CAMP OFFICE,MARINE DRIVE,ERNAKULAM PIN-682 031. 2. P.A.SUDHEER, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PUTHENVEEDU,RAYONPURAM PO,PERUMBAVOOR, PRESENT CONTACT ADDRESS S.ABDUL JABBAR, XIX,18 G21 GREENLAND GARDENS,PARAPPURAM,PERUMBAVOOR 683 543. 3. AZOOR SUDHEER, W/O.SUDHEER P.A, PUTHENVEEDU,RAYONPURAM PO,PERUMBAVOOR, PRESENT CONTACT ADDRESS S.ABDUL JABBAR, XIX,18 G21 GREENLAND GARDENS,PARAPPURAM,PERUMBAVOOR 683 543. R1 BY ADV.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30380 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner is the guarantor with respect to loan availed by the respondents 2 and 3 from the 1st respondent Bank. On failure of respondents 2 and 3 to make payment of amounts due in the loan account, the Bank had initiated proceedings against the immovable property owned by the petitioner, which is the secured asset. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act requiring the petitioner to remit balance outstanding to the tune of Rs.2,17,882.39 as on 8.7.2010, along with future interest. 2. It is stated that the petitioner had approached the Banking Ombudsman in Ext.P2 complaint challenging the actions initiated. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had failed in taking any effective steps of recovery against respondents 2 and 3, and not even a proper W.P.(C).30380/10-V -2- notice was issued to those respondents who are at present staying abroad. Ext.P3 is the reply given by the Bank to the petitioner with respect to complaint submitted before the Banking Ombudsman. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that being a guarantor the petitioner is intending to save the property from being sold. It is submitted that she had effected considerable repayments to the extent of Rs.5,71,000/-, whereas the amount availed was Rs.5 lakhs only. Inspite of various contentions raised, learned counsel is making an appeal to this court for issuing necessary directions to the 1st respondent Bank to consider the request for permitting 'One Time Settlement' of the account by waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent. 4. Since the statute provides effective alternate remedy against steps initiated under the SARFAESI Act, it is not proper for this court to interfere with the proceedings. However, since the matter is only at the stage of notice under Section 13(2), I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the 1st respondent to file proper representation regarding her grievances as well as regarding her proposal for settlement of W.P.(C).30380/10-V -3- the account. If the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent with any specific request which shall be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, seeking 'One Time Settlement', the 1st respondent Bank shall consider such request on the basis of waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent and take a decision thereof, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible. Needless to say that further coercive steps shall be initiated only after taking a decision as directed above and intimating such decision to the petitioner. 5. It is made clear that while pursuing such remedies before the 1st respondent as directed above, the petitioner shall not prosecute Ext.P2 complaint any further before the Banking Ombudsman. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb