IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12604 of 2011(A) --------------------------------------- CMP.NO.574/2011 of C.J.M.,THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. K.V.MAIDHILI, W/O.JAYARAJAN, RAM NIVAS, SANKARANELLUR, PATHIRIYAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR. 2. A.T.JAYARAJAN, RAM NIVAS, SANKARANELLUR, PATHIRIYAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MATTANNUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MATTANNUR P.O., MATTANNUR - 670 702, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 BY ADV.SRI.A.S.P.KURUP,SC R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.12604/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 19/12/2008. P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/11/2008. P3 COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY PETITIONER DATED 30/6/2010. P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 13/7/2010. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/7/2010. P6 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY AN ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY DATED 29/3/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12604 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners defaulted repayment of loan amounts due from them to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners do not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioners only seek opportunity to regularise the account by paying the defaulted instalments. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the bank submits that there are two loan accounts. One is a housing loan account and the other is an agricultural loan account. As far as the housing loan is concerned, the petitioners have already paid sufficient amounts to regularize the account and the bank is prepared to regularize the account accordingly provided the petitioners pay the future instalments on due dates as per the original loan agreement. In respect of the agricultural loan account, the bank has not initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, is his submission. W.P.(C)No.12604/11 2 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Insofar as the petitioners’ housing loan account has been regularized by paying the defaulted amount, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to pay off the balance instalments as per the original loan agreement on due dates without default. If the petitioners do so, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance in respect of the housing loan account. If the petitioners commit default in payment of any one instalment as per the original loan agreement, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. In respect of the agricultural loan account, the submission of the learned counsel for the bank that no proceedings under the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act have been initiated so far is recorded. The petitioners would be free to take appropriate action in respect of the same as and when proceedings are initiated. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.12604/11 3 W.P.(C)No.12604/11 4