IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19225 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BABURAJ.C.C., S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, "CHANDRAVILAS" NEAR TV STATION, KAKKANAD P.O.,ERNAKULAM - 682030. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. HDFC BANK LTD.S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 682025 REP.BY CHIEF MANAGER. 2. HDFC BANK LTD., HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATHI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PATEL (WEST) MUMBAI - 400013. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 19225 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a housing loan of Rs.18 lakhs from the respondent Bank in May, 2006, creating security interest over the property in question, but repayment could not be effected on time, which made the Bank to declare the account as 'NPA' and to proceed with further steps . Being aggrieved of the steps taken by the Bank, the petitioner had approached this Court ealier by filing W.P.(C)No.26369 of 2009, wherein Ext.P3 judgment was passed directing petitioner to clear the 'overdue' amount by way of 'six' euqal monthly installments, subject to which the loan account was ordered to be regularised, alerting the petitioner to clear the regualr monthly installments as well. 2. The respondent Bank challenged the above verdict by filing W.A.No.2388 of 2009. After considering the facts and circumstances, the benefit of installment to clear the 'overdue' amount was sustained, however reducing the number of W.P.(C) No. 19225 OF 2010 2 installments from 'six' to 'four', as borne by Ext.P4. 2. The learned Counsel for the Bank submits that, the petitioner did not choose to remit the installments on time and it was after expiry of the period, the 'overdue' amount was cleared. Still, the petitioner did not choose to remit the regular E.M.Is and the installemtns from October 2009 have again become overdue, which made the Bank to proceed with further steps so as to take physical possession of the property and to have it sold in publc auction. The petitioner has approached this Court again in the second round of litigation and no interference is warranted, submits the learned Counsel. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the default was never wilful and that every earnest arrangement is being made to clear the entire loan amount by way of reasonable installments. The learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner does not intend to avail the statutory remedy by approachig the DRT or intend to press any of the grounds in the Writ Petition and the only relief pressed before this Court is to permit the petitioner to wipe out the entire liability by way of W.P.(C) No. 19225 OF 2010 3 reasonable installments . 4. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the entire loan amount by way of 'six' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 20.07.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 20th of the succeeding months, subject to which the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the peitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if the petitioner commits any default in remitting the amounts, as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire outstanding liability in a lump sum, pursuing the steps, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk