IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37269 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEELA JAYACHANDRAN, W/O.P.T.JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, T.C.36/116(2) KERA-101, KARALI, KOLLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOTEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 2. THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, PETTA P.O, CHACKAI BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37269 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank, the immovable property which is the secured asset was proceeded against. Ext.P2 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. On receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 request seeking permission to regularise the account on the basis of an offer that the petitioner will repay the defaulted amount within a short period. According to the petitioner without considering such request, the Bank is proceeding with coercive steps. Hence she seeks interference of this Court. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan in question was W.P(C) No.37269 of 2010-G 2 availed in the year 2005 and there is chronic default in repayment. However, it is conceded that the repayment period is 20 years. 3. Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under the statute, and also considering the fact that the proceedings is only at the stage of issuing Section 13(2) notice, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter in the writ petition filed under Article 226. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that she is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand the limited prayer is to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of the promise that she will clear the payment of arrears within a period of one month. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to regularise the account since she had relinquished all challenges. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of W.P(C) No.37269 of 2010-G 3 directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire amount in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) on or before 31.1.2011. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular instalment due for the month of January 2011 along with the said payment. 7. If payments of defaulted amounts is cleared as per the stipulations contained above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future instalments in terms of the original schedule. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab