IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37756 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.M. RAMLATH, AGED 53, WIFE OF V.M.ALIYAR, RESIDING AT VADAKKAKUDY HOUSE, RAYONPURAM (P.O), PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, TC.17/1406, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, CHRISTURAJ SHOPPING COMPLEX, M.C.ROAD,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 542. 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, CHRISTURAJ SHOPPING COMPLEX, M.C.ROAD,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 542. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN,SC FOR BANK SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 37756 OF 2007 T ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a defaulter to the Bank. By Ext.P1 dated 10/10/2007, petitioner was called upon to regularize her account within seven days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner has produced Ext.P2 cover and submits that Ext.P1 was received in Ext.P2 cover and according to her, from the seals on the postal department, it is obvious that the letter was received by her only on 5/11/2007. It is contended that in the meantime, on 2/11/2007, Ext.P3 notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued. 2. The contention is that after having given an opportunity to the petitioner to regularise her loan account and without allowing her to take advantage of the same within the WPC 37756/07 :2 : time permitted in Ext.P1 itself, the Bank has initiated securitisation proceedings. According to the petitioner, it is only on account of the premature action on the part of the Bank that she could not regularize the account. 3. Standing counsel for the Bank on the other hand submits that petitioner has been a chronic defaulter and in the past also, she was given similar opportunity. According to the standing counsel after regularising the account, availing of the opportunity that was extended, petitioner committed default and this compelled the Bank to initiate fresh action as per Ext.P3 notice. 4. There is substance in what the counsel for the petitioner submits. The fact remains that irrespective of the previous defaults, Bank has extended the petitioner an opportunity to regularize her account by Ext.P1. Ext.P1 itself says that she need regularize the account within seven days of receipt of Ext.P1, which means that she had time atleast to 13/11/2007 since Ext.P1 was served on the petitioner only on WPC 37756/07 :3 : 7/11/2007. If that be so, Ext.P3 notice under Section 13(2) issued on 2/11/2007 is premature. For the aforesaid reasons, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to regularise the account, as she was called upon in Ext.P1, within seven days from today, in which event, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 will stand recalled. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails to regularise the account as above, it will be open to the Bank to continue action pursuant to Ext.P3. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp