IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20133 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VASUDEVAN VIDHYADHARAN, GURUKULAM, THANNIMOODU, KUTTICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: --------------- UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR. A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20133 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the respondent Bank in the year 2003, creating security interest over the property in question. The source of income shown for the repayment, at the time of availing the loan, was the salary by virtue of the employment in KSEB. The total tenure for the repayment of the loan was 10 years. But the repayments could not be effected on time, under which circumstances, the respondent Bank declared the account of the petitioner as 'NPA' and proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, submits on instructions that, the course and conduct being pursued by the petitioner can not but be deprecated. The source of income of the petitioner to effect the repayments stands closed, since the petitioner sought for and obtained VRS. It is contended that, in spite of receiving the VRS benefit, the petitioner did not choose to clear even the 'overdue' amount and the outstanding arrears as on date to wipe off the entire liability is nearly Rs. 3.2 lakhs. The learned counsel also W.P. (C) No. 20133 of 2010 : 2 : submits that, the 'overdue' amount in respect of the defaulted EMIs itself will constitute Rs.90,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the non payment of the 'overdue' amount in spite of receipt of VRS was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen circumstances. The very instance in applying for the VRS was to provide better treatment to the petitioner's wife, who was suffering from 'carcinoma', but in spite of the earnest efforts of the petitioner, he could not save the life of his wife and she succumbed to her illness. The petitioner pray for maximum indulgence of this Court to save the property. 4. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to have the loan account regularized by clearing entire over 'overdue' amount in a phased manner. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the 'overdue' amount by way of 'two' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of the August, 2010; to be followed by the next installment to be effected on before the 30th of the September, 2010.This will be in addition to the liability of the petitioner to remit the regular EMIs as well. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. It is made clear that, if the W.P. (C) No. 20133 of 2010 : 3 : petitioner commits any default in clearing the 'overdue' amount as above, or if any 'two' consecutive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. . P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd