IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2011/24TH PHALGHUNA WP(C).No. 7592 of 2011 (Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- E.K.SUBRAMANIYAN, JRK HERBALS, S/O.KUNJAMAN, ERUMAKKADAN, KUTTANALLUR POST THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SYNDICATE BANK SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, THRIKKUR BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7592 of 2011 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : BANK STATEMENT FROM 1.1.2008 TO 25.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF SECTION 13(4) NOTICE DTD.10.2.2011 EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER DTD.16.12.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7592 of 2011-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T A business loan availed by the petitioner, who is an Ayurvedic Practitioner to start a pharmaceutical company engaged in production of Ayurvedic medicines, was defaulted repayment. Consequently, the respondent Bank had initiated steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P2 is the notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, intimating steps taken as contemplated under Section 13(4). 2. According to the petitioner the repayment became defaulted only because the petitioner could not start production due to delay caused in getting the Drug license. It is submitted that, the coercive steps were pursued without considering the request made by the petitioner to W.P(C) No.7592 of 2011-Y : 2 : permit payment of the amounts within a reasonable time, in instalments. 3. Heard; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the petitioner had committed defaults in repayment and he has not taken any earnest efforts to wipe off the liability, inspite of repeated demands made. On the other hand, contention of the petitioner is that inspite of not commencing business, the petitioner had effected considerable repayments. 4. Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1), I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a limited prayer to permit payment of the entire amounts in a phased manner, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is not pursuing any statutory remedy. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay W.P(C) No.7592 of 2011-Y : 3 : off the liability within a reasonable time in instalments. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab