IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 166 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. HUSSANKUTTY, S/O. KUTTIHASSAN, IYYANIKKOTH HOUSE, KIZHAKOTH P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. 2. KADEESA, W/O. HUSSANKUTTY, IYYANIKKOTH HOUSE, KIZHAKOTH P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN, SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KALLAI BRANCH, P.B.NO.726, KOZHIKODE-673 003. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, THAVOT PLACE, KANNUR ROAD, CALICUT-673 001. 3. M/S. ENNBLOCK, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT-673 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.166 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioners are the guarantors with respect to loan availed by the 3rd respondent firm from respondents 1 and 2. Consequent to default committed by the 3rd respondent, properties belonging to the petitioners, which are mortgaged for securing the loan, was proceeded against invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). On the basis of approach made by respondents 1 and 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, invoking Section 14(1), an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who in turn had issued Ext.P2 notice requiring the petitioners to hand over possession of the property. 2. It is stated that the petitioners have made considerable payments after initiation of the proceedings and the coercive steps for dispossession is now being initiated without acceding to their request to grant breathing time for payment of the entire balance. 3. When the matter came up for admission, this court W.P.(C).166/11 -2- granted an interim stay against the dispossession, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.60,000/- after the interim order. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is admitted that, after initiation of the proceedings considerable payments were made in the account. It is further stated that the amount outstanding as on 14.1.2011 is Rs.1,44,785/- along with a sum of Rs.30,365/- towards expenses. 4. Considering the fact that the proceedings is now at a stage of taking over possession of the property and also considering the fact that the petitioner has not availed any of the statutory remedies, which is alternative and efficacious, it is not justified on the part of this court in interdicting with the proceedings. 5. However, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioners are not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, a limited prayer is made to permit payment of the balance outstanding within a reasonable time, in instalments. Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, I am of the view that on an equitable basis, the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the liability within a short time. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing W.P.(C).166/11 -3- respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property in question, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with future interest and expenses if any due, in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.3.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 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 against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb