IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32716 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.CHEKKUTTY @ ISHAQUE S/O KUNHALI, KOORIMANIL KAZHUKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, CHITTATHUPARA, PO KADAMBODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PANDIKKAD BRANCH, PANDIKKAD P.O., PIN 676521., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER), HEAD OFFICE, UPHILL MALAPPURAM, PIN 676505. BY ADVS. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32716 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Coercive steps initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed in repayment of a consumer loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Invoking Section 14(1) the respondents have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioner inspite of approaches made before the respondent seeking time for payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to such request. W.P(C) No.32716 of 2010-L 2 Hence the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in permitting to pay off the liability in a phased manner. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner had not invoked the statutory remedies, at any stage when coercive steps under Section 13(2) and 13(4) were initiated, I am of the view that it is not proper for this Court to restrain the proceedings in a writ petition filed under Article 226. This is especially because of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110). 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, he makes a prayer for permitting payment of the entire balance within a short period in instalments. 5. As a gesture of indulgence this Court had issued an interim order on 27.10.2010 restraining dispossession of the petitioner, subject to condition of his paying a sum of Rs.75,000/-. It is reported that the condition has already been complied with. Under such circumstances I am of the W.P(C) No.32716 of 2010-L 3 view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability within a reasonable time. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due, on or before 31.12.2010 and on or before the last day of every succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings, either before this Court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab