IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 29095 of 2010(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ALPHONSA.K.V., AGED 40, W/O.P.O.THOMAN, PANACKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPURAM,NORTH KUTHIYATHODE, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THOMAN.P.O., AGED 50, OUSEPH, PANACKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPURAM,NORTH KUTHIYATHODE, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.PADMANABHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ANGAMALI BRANCH. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (CHIEF MANAGER), STATE BANK OF INDIA, ANGAMALI BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI- 400021. 4. SMT.NISHANI.D.N., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, (CRMINAL M.P.NO.5089 OF 2010) CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM. R1,3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC., SBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 29095 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are husband and wife. They availed educational loan from respondents 1 to 3 for pursuing study in travel and tourism, abroad. Consequent to default committed by the petitioners in repayment, immovable property which was mortgaged to secure the loan was proceeded against by invoking provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) . On the basis of the approach made by respondents 1 to 3, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property, in a proceedings under section 14(1) of the Act. Ext.P10 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requiring the petitioners to handover possession of the property. 2. Eventhough the petitioners have not invoked the statutory remedy provided under section 17(1), as a gesture of indulgence, dispossession of the petitioners from the property was stayed subject to conditions imposed. It is conceded by WP(C).29095/2010 2 both sides on the basis of the interim orders issued by this court, the petitioners had effected payment of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- . Learned counsel for the Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that after crediting all such payments the balance amount due for payment will be around Rs.9.29 lakhs, along with interest and expenses due. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this court to permit payment of the balance outstanding in instalments within a reasonable time, on the basis of specific undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and also rights if any to invoke any statutory remedy. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, the petitioners can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to keep in abeyance dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with future interest and expenses if any due in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments, WP(C).29095/2010 3 falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of every succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued, and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).29095/2010 4