IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3152 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SMT.S.SASIKALA,W/O.DENNISON, REMYA BHAVAN, MUTTAMOODU, NARUVAMOODU PO, PALLICHAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,. REGIONAL OFFICE OVERBRIDGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 3152 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Coercive steps of recovery initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner along with her husband had availed a business loan from the respondent, during the year 2008, by mortgaging immovable property belonging to them. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the monthly instalments, the immovable property, which is the secured asset was proceeded against. Ext.P2 is the notice issued intimating taking over possession of the property invoking section 13 (4). 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were being pursued without considering the approach made before the respondent for allowing sufficient time to pay off the liability. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the term of repayment of the loan account has not been expired and that the petitioner is ready to pay off the amounts in default, in WP(C).3152/2011 2 order to regularise the account. 3. Heard; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that a total amount of more than Rs.4.58 lakhs is due under the loan account and the petitioner, after availing the loan, had remitted only a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 4. Considering availability of the effective alternative remedy against Ext.P2 notice, it is not proper and justified on the part of this court to interfere with the matter at the present stage. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and the limited prayer is only to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer that the defaulted amounts will be paid within a short time. 5. Considering the limited prayer, I am of the view that, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the account, considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the amounts in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses, if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before WP(C).3152/2011 3 28.2.2011 and on or before 31.3.2011, along with regular payment of monthly instalments due with respect to the above said months . 7. If payment of the defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the regular instalments in future, in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).3152/2011 4