IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23425 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.SHEELA, W/O.T.R.RAVEENDRAN, ELAVANKUZHI, MELILA WEST P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, NOW RESIDING AT K.I.P.QUARTERS, NELLIMOOTTIL PADY, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ELAMANNOOR BRANCH, POURNAMI BUILDINGS, ELAMANNOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY STANDING COUNSEL MR. P.V. SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 23425 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the respondent in the year 2003, creating security interest over the property in question. But, the repayments were not effected on time, as scheduled. This made the petitioner a defaulter, when the Bank steps, declared the account as 'NPA' and proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the default was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen circumstances. The petitioner has preferred Ext. P3 representation before the Bank , expressing willingness to effect the 'overdue' amount, which is pending consideration; without any regard to which, the respondents are proceeding with further steps. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that, the course pursued by the Bank is strictly in accordance with law and not assailable under any circumstances. Unless and until the 'overdue' amount, with interest and costs in respect W.P. (C) No. 23425 of 2010 : 2 : of the defaulted EMIs, is remitted, the question of regularization is not liable to be entertained, submits the learned counsel. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear the 'overdue' amount by way of 'three' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be paid on or before the 30th of August, 2010; to be followed by the similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months; on which event, the loan account of the petitioner will stand regularized. This will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to remit the regular EMIs as well. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in clearing the 'overdue' amount as above, or if any 'two consecutive defaults' are made with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in a lump. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd