IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 7677 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.ASIA, PROPRIETRESS, SHAHUL HAMEED MEERAN NAGAR, RICE & FLOUR MILL (SSI & W.I.P), P.O.CHEKKIKULAM (VIA) KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT: --------------- THE MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK LTD., KUDUKKIMOTTA BRANCH, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.A.SARATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 7677 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th May , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is proprietor of an SSA Unit had availed a loan from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question, but repayment could not be effected on time. This made the respondent Bank to declare the account as 'NPA' and to proceed with further steps invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act , which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings now stated as being pursued by the respondent Bank, particularly seeking for the assistance of the Police by filing a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the C.J.M. Court and further steps are not liable to be sustained for the fact that absolutely no notice whatsoever was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act . W.P.(C) No. 7677 OF 2010 2 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank, with reference to the copies of the proceedings, submits that a notice was issued on 24.09.2008 and that the notice which was sent by registered post was returned 'unclaimed'. Thereafter, the notice was published in two dailies, viz., in 'Deshabhimani' and 'Mathrubhumi' dated 23.10.2008. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the total outstanding liability as on 17.05.2010 is Rs.2.75 lakhs with further interest and cost . 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was absolutely having no idea with regard to the notice stated as issued and submits that the default was never wilful but because of some unforeseen circumstances. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner does not intend to challenge the steps any further by approaching the DRT or otherwise and that the only limited prayer pressed before this Court is that she may be permitted to clear the liability in a phased manner. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the persuasive submission made by the learned Counsel for the W.P.(C) No. 7677 OF 2010 3 petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by way of 'six' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.06.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further coercive steps for realisation of the amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk