IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 794 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- A.YOUNUS KUNJU, METTAYIL,SOUTH MYNAGAPPALLY, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O.,KOLLAM-690519 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691001. 2. THE MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691001. 3. M/S.NOUFIYA CASHEWS, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.Y.NAVAS, METTAYIL, SOUTH MYNAGAPPALLY, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM-690519 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.794 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Coercive steps of recovery initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is challenged in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan availed by the 3rd respondent, from respondents 1 and 2, proceedings was initiated against the petitioner who is one of the guarantors with respect to the loan transaction. Immovable property belonging to the petitioner was proceeded against and respondents had published Ext.P3 notice under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules intimating taking over possession of the property under Section 13(4). 2. Considering availability of effective alternative remedy under the statute, it is not proper and justified for this court to interdict with the proceedings, in this case which is filed under Article 226. 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 W.P.(C).794/11 -2- other hand, a limited prayer is made to permit payment of the amount in a phased manner within a reasonable time. 3. Heard, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Considering the limited prayer made, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time in instalments. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery on the basis of notices already issued, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.1.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps on the basis of 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. okb