IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36688 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.S.A.SIDHIK, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SAIDU MOHAMMED, ASHIANA, LENIN NAGAR, ISLAND AVENUE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC, SRI.BABY THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BHARTHAKSHEMAM BUILDING, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER-680 005. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, PEECHI BRANCH, KANNARA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-680 652. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC, SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36688 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation 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 personal term loan (mortgage loan) availed for business purpose from the respondent Bank, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank is now proceeding with steps for taking over possession of the property. Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 intimating the steps taken as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner, he had effected considerable payments and even payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- after receipt of notice under Section 13(2). It is stated that eventhough the petitioner had approached the respondent bank offering payment of the defaulted amounts and seeking regularisation of the account, the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps. Hence the petitioner is seeking W.P.(C).36688/10-I -2- interference of this court. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent bank submitted that, total amount outstanding as on 31.12.2010 is more than Rs.21.20 lakhs. It is further stated that even the overdue amount (amount in default) will come to around Rs.11.20 lakhs. Since huge amount is in default, the respondent bank is proceeding with coercive steps and that they have no confidence in the offer made by the petitioner for reguliarisation of the account and for regular payment of future instalments. 4. Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, this court is not justified in interfering, especially in view of the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (8) SCC 110). 5. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit the petitioner to regularise the account on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the impugned proceedings and that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to continue payment by regularising W.P.(C).36688/10-I -3- the default, especially because of the fact that the repayment period is for 60 months. 6. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further coercive steps on the basis of Ext.P1 and P3 notices, provided the petitioner remits the entire amount in default (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular instalments due for the respective months. If payment of defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay off the instalments in accordance with the original schedule of loan. 7. 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 petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb