IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 27227 of 2010(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SHIBU VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE A.P.VARGHESE, ALUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, WEST OTHERA P.O., KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.K.S.VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.K.R.SIVARAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 'INDRANEELAM', ERAVIPEROOR P.O., ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. RAICHEL SHIBU, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SHIBU VARGHESE, ALUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, WEST OTHERA P.O., KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.K.S.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.K.R.SIVARAMAN NAIR, R/AT 'INDRANEELAM'. ERAVIPEROOR P.O., ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.SIKKY RAVISHANKAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, C.SREEKUMAR, REGISTERED OFFICE: ALUVA, KERALA. 2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., THIRUVALLA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27227 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The 1st petitioner had availed two commercial loans from the respondent Bank. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner, who is the guarantor with respect to the loan transaction. Consequent to default committed in repayments, the Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against on issuing Ext.P5 notice intimating steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioners, the property mortgaged is the residential building and if any coercive steps for dispossession is taken, they will be put to severe prejudice. It is stated that the steps now initiated is without considering requests made by the petitioners to grant six months time to close the account. 3. Considering the effective alternative remedy available under Section 17(1), it is not justified on the part of this court to interfere with the proceedings. However, dispossession was W.P.(C).27227/10 -2- stayed by virtue of an interim order directing the petitioners to make payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is reported that the payment was effected within the time as extended by this court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the amount outstanding payment is more than Rs.22 lakhs and the loan account is in chronic default. It is also stated that, consequent to failure in getting the interim stay order extended, steps under Section 14(1) was initiated and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court has already appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners made an appeal to this court to permit them to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time, on the basis of an undertaking made to the effect that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that they are not intending to invoke remedies as provided under Section 17(1). Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, I am of the view that considering the limited prayer and also considering relinquishment of challenges raised the petitioners can be permitted to pay off the liability in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps W.P.(C).27227/10 -3- for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire balance outstanding in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. It is left open to the petitioners to approach the Bank seeking permission for regularisation of the account by payment of the amounts in default. It is made clear that the stipulations contained in this Judgment will not stand in the way of the Bank considering any such request. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb