IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36246 of 2010(E) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 491/2010 IN IA.490/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER:- ------------------ SHRI.A.K.MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.LATE KARUPPAKUTTY, ADIYOLI HOUSE, PARALAM, VENGINISSERY P.O., THRISSUR-680575. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT:- -------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECCC, THRISSUR, (RETAIL ASSETS AND SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES CITY CREDIT CENTRE), 2ND FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDING, MG ROAD, THRISSUR-680001, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY SC SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.36246 of 2010-E. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th January, 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, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The petitioner had invoked remedy available under Section 17(1) and the Debt Recovery Tribunal was approached with a Securitisation Application. In an Interlocutory Application filed as IA.No.491/2010 before that Tribunal, an interim stay was granted against coercive steps subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 25.3.2010. The petitioner complied with the condition imposed. Consequently, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had extended the interim stay on further condition of payment of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30.6.2010. Since the petitioner WP(C).No.36246 of 2010-E. 2 could not comply with the said condition, within the time stipulated, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had vacated the interim order. Consequently the respondent Bank had invoked procedure as contemplated under Sec.14(1) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached for taking over possession of the property. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in this regard and had initiated steps for taking over possession of the property. Even though the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal for advancing the hearing of the interim application, by making payment of amounts stipulated, the same was not taken up for consideration. Since coercive steps were proceeded with, this writ petition is filed seeking interference. 2. Considering pendency of the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, this Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, on the basis of averments made by the petitioner that the proceedings WP(C).No.36246 of 2010-E. 3 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal will be withdrawn and all challenges against the proceedings are relinquished, indulgence was shown in restraining dispossession subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is reported that the petitioner had already complied with the condition and the Securitisation Application was already dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Under the above circumstance the limited request made by the petitioner is to permit payment of the entire balance outstanding in a phased manner within a reasonable time. 4. Heard; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank also. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the limited prayer sought for can be permitted. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to keep in abeyance the WP(C).No.36246 of 2010-E. 4 proceedings now initiated, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance amount along with interest and expenses if any due, in three equal monthly instalments, falling due on 31.1.2011 and on or before the last day of two succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notice already issued. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-