IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26784 of 2010(W) -------------------------- CRMP.4724/2010 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ELSY PAUL, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU, ANGAMALY-683 572. 2. P.T.PAUL, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU, ANGAMALY-683 572. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.K.M.SALIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (UNDER SARFAESI ACT), STATE BANK OF INDIA, ANGAMALY-683 572. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ANGAMALY-683 572. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 26784 of 2010-W ---------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive steps initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner availed a cash credit facility as well as a term loan from the respondent Bank, with respect to his business activities. Consequent to default committed in repayments, the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached invoking Section 14(1) of the Act. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, requesting the petitioner to handover possession of the immovable property, which is a secured asset. 2. Eventhough various contents are raised against the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to regularize the loan account by effecting payment of the outstanding dues, within a reasonable W.P(C) No. 26784 of 2010-W 2 time. The said proposal was not opposed by the respondent Bank. 3. Under the above circumstances, eventhough interference on merits on the challenges raised in this writ petition is not at all possible, I am inclined to show indulgence in permitting to regularize the loan account. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep dispossession of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 notice in abeyance for a period of one month. The petitioner is permitted to make payment of the entire amount outstanding in the loan account (overdue amount) within the said period. If such amounts are remitted the respondent Bank shall regularise the loan account and permit the petitioner to continue payment as per the original terms of the loan accounts. 5. Needless to say that on the event of failure on the part of the petitioner, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, and on any such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any challenge against the proceedings. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge