IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8620 of 2011(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SHANAVAS,S/O.EBRAHIM KUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAKKADA KIZHAKKATHIL PUTHANVEEDU, MARU: SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLI, KOLLAM DT. 2. NAJUMAMOL, W/O.SHANAVAS, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO..... BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. I.C.I.C.I. BANK LTD., KARUNAGAPPALLI BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - 690 518. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ZONAL DEBT MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I BANK LTD.I.C.I.C.I. BANK TOWERS, 6TH FLOOR, NORTH WING TOWR 2 WS# 121, FINANCIAL DISTRICT GACHI BOWLI, HYDRABAD - 500 032, A.P. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8620 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioners from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. 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. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2006 with a repayment period extending upto the year 2028. It is further contended that the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to their request to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts in default within a short time. 3. Eventhough interference by this court is not proper, considering the effective statutory remedy provided, dispossession was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting Rs.75,000/-. It is conceded that the petitioner had W.P.(C).8620/11 -2- already remitted a sum of Rs.1 lakh. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the amount overdue for payment, which is in default, is more than Rs.4.56 lakhs. If the petitioner makes payment of the said amount within a short period, the Bank has no objection in permitting continued repayment as per the original schedule. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances I am of the view that eventhough interference on merits is not justified, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the balance amount remaining overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before 31.5.2011, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in W.P.(C).8620/11 -3- 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