IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33712 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.AYISHA, AGED 49 YEARS, NADUTHODI HOUSE, MEPPADI P.O., VYTHIRI, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, IST FLOOR, METRO PALACE, OPP. ERNAKULAM NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 2. THE MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MEPPADI BRANCH, MEPPADY P.O., VYTHIRI, WYNADU DISTRICT. 3. N.HAMEED, THANJILOTTU HOUSE, VELLARIMALA, MEPPADY P.O., WYNADU. RESPONDENTS BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (S.C) SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.33712 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has entered into Exhibit P1 agreement for sale of the property having an extent of 51.22 cents belonging to the third respondent, agreeing that the liability of the third respondent to the respondent bank in connection with the loan secured by the third respondent on the strength of the security created over the property in question will be cleared by the petitioner. 2. Since the repayment as scheduled was not effected by the borrower or by the guarantors, there was no other alternative for the respondent bank, but to proceed with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 7.12.2009 dispossession of the petitioner (who was put 2 in possession by the third respondent pursuant to Exhibit P1 sale agreement) was intercepted on condition that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before the 31st December, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by this Court has already been satisfied and that the entire outstanding liability will be cleared on or before 31st March, 2010. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the bank submits, on the basis of the instructions received, that the total outstanding liability was nearly 5.5 lakhs and that after giving credit to the amount already paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 7.12.2009, the balance amount including further interest and costs is liable to be specified by the petitioner without any delay. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire outstanding liability on or before 31st March, 2010 as agreed, failing which the respondent bank will be free to proceed with further steps, for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. Subject to the above, the coercive 3 proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. This however, will not bar the way of the petitioner in approaching the respondent bank seeking for the benefit of 'OTS' or such other benefits, concessions or allowances, on which event, the respondent bank shall consider and entertain the same to the permissible extent, if found fit and proper. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge cms