IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2011/7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7227 of 2011 (C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. K.C.CHACKO, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH CHACKO, KOORKALAYIL HOUSE, ERUMELY KARA ERUMELY P.O. 2. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH JOSEPH, OLICKAL HOUSE, KUNNNAM KARA KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY P.O. 3. SONY JACOB, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.C.CHACKO, KOORKAKALAYIL HOUSE ERUMELY KARA AND ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE (SBT), REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ERUMELY BRANCH ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, REGION II, ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE POLACHIRACKAL CHAMBERS, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER II (K) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, REGION II KOTTAYAM. BY SRI.K.S.DILIP - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7227 of 2011 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAMULA EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SUIT FILED BY THE BANK EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.25.2.2011 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.10.2.2009 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.10.2.2009 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE POSSESSION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.9.12.2009 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PAPER NOTIFICATION DTD.11.12.2008 EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.19.11.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7227 of 2011-C ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the borrower and guarantors with respect to an Educational loan availed from the respondent Bank. The loan was availed in the year 2004 to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the respondents are now proceeding with steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P6 is the notice issued intimating steps taken under Section 13(4). 2. The petitioners raise various contentions. The property in question is agricultural land exempted from the purview of the SARFAESI Act, is the main contention. It is further stated that the Bank had filed a civil suit for recovery of the amounts, which is pending. According to the petitioners the coercive steps are proceeded without considering the request of the petitioners for granting sufficient time to pay off the liability. 3. However, it is conceded that the petitioners have W.P(C) No.7227 of 2011-C : 2 : approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal invoking Section 17(1) and a Securitisation Application filed is pending disposal before that Tribunal. It is also evident that the petitioners had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P(C) No.2851/2009, which was dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioners to invoke statutory remedy. According to the petitioners now the steps are proceeded without considering Ext.P8 request submitted seeking one time settlement and wavier of interest. Hence this writ petition is filed. 4. In the statement of the respondents it is mentioned that a sum of Rs.14,74,550/- with interest from 11.7.2008 onwards is due and the Bank had taken possession of the secured assets, symbolically, on 9.12.2009. It is further mentioned that in the Securitisation Application a conditional order was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which the petitioners had failed to comply with. However, it is admitted that the petitioners had effected payment of a sum of Rs.10,07,199/- and the present due is about Rs.9 lakhs. It is also mentioned that, with respect to the request for one time settlement the Bank had given a reply stating that such proposal is not acceptable. 5. Considering pendency of the matter before the Debt W.P(C) No.7227 of 2011-C : 3 : Recovery Tribunal it may not be proper and justified on the part of this Court to interfere with the matter. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay off the liability and to withdraw the Securitisation Application. On that premise the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the entire amount outstanding, in a phased manner within a reasonable time, subject to an undertaking that they are relinquishing all challenges and shall withdraw the Securitisation Application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The above submission is made subject to their liberty to approach the respondent Bank for seeking waiver of amounts to the possible extent. 6. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not possible, the petitioners can be permitted to wipe off the entire liability within a short time. 7. Therefore, 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 petitioners withdrawing the Securitisation Application, which W.P(C) No.7227 of 2011-C : 4 : is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and making payment of the entire amounts outstanding along with future interest and expenses in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.4.2011 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months. 8. It is made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the Bank seeking waiver of amounts to the possible extent or seeking one time settlement. It is made clear that despite the above directions, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to consider such requests and to take appropriate decision. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab