IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND APRIL 2008 / 2ND VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13100 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- KUTTY BAVA HAJI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOHEMMED KUTTY, CHEKKAMADATH HOUSE, TANUR, OTTUMPURAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, TANUR BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION III, ZONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13100 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this Writ Petition is against the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The proceedings are reached the stage when the Bank published Ext.P4 sale notice and the petitioner is relying on Ext.P5 and contents that the Government have declared moratorium on the loan and therefore the proceedings initiated by the Bank is liable to be stayed. 2. The bank has filed a statement. According to the Bank, the petitioner is neither a fisherman nor is he entitled to the benefit of the moratorium declared by the Government, by Ext.P5. 3. Petitioner being a dealer in dry fish, in my view, the Bank is well founded in its contention that the petitioner is not a fisherman and that he is not entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5. Even otherwise Ext.P5 cannot be applied to the amounts that are extended by the commercial banks like the respondents therein. WPC No. 13100 OF 2008 2 For these reasons and especially when the petitioner admittedly is a defaulter to the bank I do not see any objection in the action initiated by the respondent bank for realising the dues. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks instalment facility to discharge the liability to the bank and I heard the Standing Counsel for the Bank on this request. Going by the sale notice, more than six lakhs is due to the bank. Since proceedings have reached the stage of sale notice, it is only appropriate that sufficient conditions be imposed even for the grant of instalment facility. Accordingly, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing that if the petitioner remits 1/4th of the amount due before 30th of April, 2008, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will stand stayed. It is also directed that subject to remittance as above, the petitioner will be permitted to pay the balance amount due to the bank in four equal instalments. The 1st instalment will be payable before 30th of May 2008 and the subsequent instalments before 30th of every succeeding month. It is clarified that, in case the petitioner WPC No. 13100 OF 2008 3 commits any default, the Bank will be free to continue the proceedings, without further notice to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 13100 OF 2008 4 WPC No. 13100 OF 2008 5