IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2281 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AJIMON. P.S, 34 YEARS, S/O.SUNDERAN, PUTHEN VEETTIL, ARATTUPUZHA, KIZHAKKEKARA, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAVELIKARA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 530. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A.S.P. KURUP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2281 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner, a surety with respect to a housing loan availed by his brother from the respondent Bank, is challenging the coercive steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed, the Bank had proceeded against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. On the basis of orders issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alapuzha, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property and Ext.P2 notice was issued in this regard. 2. Considering the fact that the petitioner had failed to avail the effective alternative remedy provided under the statute, it is not justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings at this stage. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Bank submitted that the loan account was in chronic default and the outstanding arrears itself is around Rs.3.11 lakhs. 3. Confronted with the above position learned counsel for the petitioner requested for indulgence of this court in W.P.(C).2281/11 -2- permitting regularisation of the account on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is intending to pursue statutory remedy if any available. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account since the loan account is left with a reasonable period of repayment and since the petitioner had relinquished all challenges. 5. Under the above circumstances the respondents are restrained from proceeding with any sale or dispossession of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amount in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.2.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. The petitioner should also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months along with the payments as directed above. 6. If payment of amounts in default is regularised the petitioner shall be permitted to make payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. W.P.(C).2281/11 -3- 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb