IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6346 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VARGHESE. C.V., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.VARTHUKUTTY, CHALAVEETTIL HOUSE, T.O.G. PASS ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) UNION BANK, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-683 035. BY ADV. MR.A.S.P. KURUP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6346 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 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, the immovable property which is the secured asset, was proceeded against under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P2 is the notice issued intimating steps taken under Section 13(4). 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now proceeded without acceding to his request to permit regularisation of the account. It is contended that the loan in question was availed in the year 2008 with repayment period extending upto 14 years, and the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the amounts remaining overdue, within a short period. 3. The total amount demanded under Ext.P2 is a sum of Rs.9,39,711/- as on 1.3.2010. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, on the basis of W.P.(C).6346/11 -2- instructions received, submitted that the amount overdue for payment itself will come to more than Rs.1.90 lakhs. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner contended that even after filing the writ petition the petitioner had effected payment of Rs.75,000/-. 4. Considering the effective alternative remedy available under the statute, it may not be justified on the part of this court to interfere with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal for permitting regularisation, on the basis of an undertaking made to the effect that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the impugned proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any to avail statutory remedy. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account considering the fact that he had relinquished all challenges and also considering the fact that the repayment period is for 14 years. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further recovery steps for dispossession and sale of the property in question, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts in default (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of the W.P.(C).6346/11 -3- succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any of the future monthly instalments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb