IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7378 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.AKBAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMOIDUNNI, POONTHATTU HOUSE, P.O.PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GURUVAYOOR BRANCH, KERALA TOWERS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR-680101., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, GURUVAYOOR BRANCH, KERALA TOWERS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR-680101., THRISSUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.7378/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.GVR/16/58 DTD. 16.9.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.GVR/16/108 DTD. 9.2.2011. P3:- COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DTD. 9.2.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7378 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a credit facility availed from the respondents, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was put to public auction as per Ext.P3 notice. 2. According to the petitioner, he stood only as a surety to his father-in-law and the default was committed by the borrower. It is contended that the coercive steps are now being pursued without considering various payments effected and without acceding to the request made by the petitioner to permit payment of the amounts due within reasonable period. 3. Pursuant to interim orders issued by this Court, the petitioner had remitted a total sum of Rs.6 lakhs, after filing 2 W.P.(C).No.7378 of 2011 of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that, the credit facility in question was availed in the year 2005 with the repayment period extending to 5 years, which had already expired. After crediting all payments made, it is stated that an amount of Rs.6.85 lakhs is still due. 4. Considering the alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the Act, it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel made an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand, a limited prayer is made to permit payment of the balance amount in instalments, within a reasonable time. 5. Even though interference on merits is not called for, I am of the view that, the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in instalments, within a reasonable time, in view of the relinquishments made. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of 3 W.P.(C).No.7378 of 2011 directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property in question, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.8.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/