IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10158 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SINDU SUBHASH,W/O.SUBHASH.N.R,AGED 42 YEARS,CHITHIRA,PULIAMBILLIMUGAL,AMBALAMEDU.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER(AUTHORIZED OFFICER), SYNDICATE BANK,REGIONAL OFFICE,PIONEER TOWERS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD,ERNAKULAM-682031. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK, THRIPUNITHURA BRANCH,MARKET JUNCTION,THRIPUNITHURA 682301,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.10158 of 2011-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Pursuant to steps initiated under Section 13(4), Ext.P4 notice was issued intimating the petitioner about the proposed action for sale of the property. 2. According to the petitioner the loan in question was availed in the year 2007 with a repayment period of 12 years and the coercive steps of recovery are now being pursued without acceding to her request for permitting regularisation of the account. 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that since 2009 onwards the petitioner has not remitted any monthly instalments and the loan account is in chronic default. Since the petitioner was committing consecutive W.P(C) No.10158 of 2011-T 2 defaults, the respondents are not favouring in permitting regularisation. 4. Considering availability of effective statutory remedy, this Court may not justified in interdicting with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer that the amount in default will be paid immediately. It is further undertaken that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that she had already relinquished rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited reliefs sought for, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account in view of the fact that the repayment period is for 12 years and also in view of relinquishment made with respect to challenges. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amount remaining overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses W.P(C) No.10158 of 2011-T 3 if any due) on or before 30.4.2011, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the month of April, 2011. 7. If payment of defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule. 8. It is made clear that, on the event of default in payment of the amounts as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab