IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35106 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PRASANNA KUMARY, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, KUZHIATHU VADAKKATHIL, PALLICKAL, NOORANAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) INDIAN BANK, KOLLAM MAIN BRANCH, INDIAN BANK TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. THE MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, PALLICKAL BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.S. EASWARAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35106 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 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, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. The respondent bank had demanded payment of a total amount of Rs.3,11,798/-, outstanding as on 1.7.2010, within a period of 60 days. According to the petitioner, the secured asset is her dwelling house and if the property is proceeded against, that will cause severe prejudice and difficulties to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had already remitted substantial amounts W.P.(C).35106/10-K -2- in the loan account. It is pointed out that the repayment period of the loan is 15 years from 2006 and the petitioner is ready and willing to regularise the account by making payment of the defaulted installments. Under such circumstances the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in restraining the respondents from proceeding with further steps. 2. It is pertinent to note that the statute provides an effective remedy to the borrowers/guarantors to file objections/representations against notices issued under Section 13(2). It is obligatory on the part of the secured creditor to consider such objections/representations if any received, and to take a decision thereof with due intimation to the borrower. Considering the contentions raised in this writ petition I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to approach the respondent bank in reply to Ext.P1 notice making any offer for regularisation of the account, as contended above. 3. Considering that the petitioner had approached this court, I am inclined to relegate the petitioner to W.P.(C).35106/10-K -3- approach the respondents with such a representation, even if the period stipulated under Section 13(3) had expired. If the petitioner makes any such objection/representation against Ext.P1 notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the respondents shall consider the same and take a decision thereof on the basis of the facts and circumstances prevailing. 4. Needless to say that further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act can be pursued only after intimating such decision to the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb