IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33500 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MAHENDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, NALLEPPILLY HOUSE, KUNNATHERY, THAIKKATUKARA P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALUVA, PIN – 683 101. BY SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33500 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. 3. Ext.P1 is the notice issued intimating the steps taken under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2005 and the repayment period is for 15 years. The default in payment of certain instalments happened due to some unforeseen circumstances and inspite of approach made by the petitioner offering payment of the defaulted amounts with a view to regularize the account, the W.P.(C) No. 33500/2010 2 respondent is now proceeding with coercive steps. Hence, the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 4. Considering availability of statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, it is not proper for this Court to entertain this writ petition, on the basis of merits of any of the contentions raised. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedies and he is willing to relinquish all such challenges, provided he may be permitted to regularize the account by payment of the amount in default within a short period. 5. Heard; learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank. It is submitted that even the defaulted amount outstanding will come around Rs.1.87 lakhs. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not keen in effecting regular repayments and the loan account remains in chronic default. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to W.P.(C) No. 33500/2010 3 regularize the account in view of the fact that he is relinquishing all challenges and statutory remedies against the proceeding, and also in view of the fact that the repayment period is for 15 years. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, provided the petitioner remits the defaulted amounts (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30-11-2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 8. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months, along with the above said instalments. 9. If payment in the loan account is regularized as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment on future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedules of repayment. 10. It is made clear that on the event of default in W.P.(C) No. 33500/2010 4 payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notice already issued. It is made clear that the relief granted above is subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.