IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7277 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE THOMAS,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS,ELAVUNKAL HOUSE,AMPARANIRAPEL.P.O, BHARANANGANAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA,REP.BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,(SARFAESI ACT),REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,THIRUNAKKARA,KOTTAYAM-686001. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7277 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF ONE OF THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD.31.12011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7277 of 2011-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against invoking provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P2 is the notice issued intimating steps taken under 13(4) of the Act. According to the petitioner the coercive steps are now pursued without considering the request made by the petitioner for permitting regularisation of the account, on the basis of an offer made to pay off the existing arrears within a short time. 2. Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submitted that, in fact the authorities of the Bank had already permitted the petitioner to regularise the account, but he has not remitted the amounts in default, W.P(C) No.7277 of 2011-H 2 within the time as promised. 3. Considering availability of an effective alternative remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the impugned proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to pursue statutory remedy. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the view that the limited prayer for permitting regularisation can be considered. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to keep in abeyance all coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts remaining overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in W.P(C) No.7277 of 2011-H 3 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 6. If payments of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any one of the future monthly instalments, the respondent 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 petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab