IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4285 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. C.M.KUNHIMOIDU, S/O.C.M.MOIDEEN, CHUNGATH HOUSE, PAZHAYA LAKKIDI, AKALUR POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SUKIRIYA, W/O.C.M.KUNHIMOIDU, CHUNGATH HOUSE, PAZHAYA LAKKIDI, AKALUR POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CANARA BANK, OTTAPALAM BRANCH, OTTAPALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. PIN-679 101. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (ASST.GENERAL MANAGER), CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. PIN-673 001. 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER, RECOVERIES & LEGAL SECTION, CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. PIN-673 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON , SC FOR CANARA BANK SRI.S.RAMU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4285 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repaying a housing loan availed by the petitioners from the respondent Bank, proceedings 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 the secured asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P1 is the sale notice published subsequent to steps initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that the coercive steps are now being pursued without considering request made by the petitioners to permit regularisation of the loan account. 3. Standing counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan in question, which was availed in the year 2003, is in chronic default and the petitioners have defaulted payment of consecutive monthly installments for a W.P.(C).4285/11 -2- long period. It is submitted that the total amount outstanding as on 23.11.2010 is more than Rs.6.13 lakhs. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioners have not chosen to avail the statutory remedy which is efficacious, it may not be justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings, at this stage. However, learned counsel for petitioners made an undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and also rights if any available to pursue statutory remedies. On the other hand a limited prayer is made to permit the petitioners to regularise the account on the basis of an offer to make payment of the amounts in default within a reasonable time. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the Bank is not favouring in permitting regularisation since the account is in chronic default and considerable amounts are due from the petitioners. 5. While considering the rival submissions I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not justified, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioners to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable period, especially in view of the fact that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges W.P.(C).4285/11 -3- against the proceedings. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery including dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.3.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months along with payment of regular EMIs due for the respective 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 at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb