IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35863 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.A.FREDDY, S/O.ARTHUR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.AFO COIR MATS, AISWARIYA, NALUTHENGU, CHANNANKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, INDIAN BANK TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, PUTHENTHOPE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR- SC FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35863 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent Bank during the year 1989 for the purpose of his business activities, by mortgaging various items of immovable properties. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the respondents have initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Section 13(1) and Ext.P4 is the notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (enforcement) Rules 2002 intimating the steps taken under Section 13(4). 2. According to the petitioner the loan availed was only for an amount of Rs.3,42,187/- and the arrears now claimed is a huge amount of Rs.42,01,717/-, as on 31.7.2010. It is stated that the petitioner had already approached the respondent Bank through Ext.P2 W.P(C) No.35863 of 2010-G 2 representation seeking for one time settlement by offering payment of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are now taking coercive steps without considering such request. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the request of the petitioner for one time settlement could not be considered since the relevant scheme is not in operation at present. It is further contended that the loan account in default since the last so many years and that the petitioner has not effected any payment. 4. Considering the merits of the contentions raised, I am of the view that no case is made out warranting interference of this Court with the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. This is especially because of the fact that the petitioner has got effective remedy under the statute. However, limited prayer of the petitioner is only for a direction to the respondent Bank to consider Ext.P2 request and to take favourable decision. Eventhough it is noticed that Ext.P2 representation was filed even before W.P(C) No.35863 of 2010-G 3 issuing the notice under Section 13(2), I am of the view that interest of justice will be served, if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider Ext.P2 and to take an appropriate decision thereon. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider Ext.P2 and to take a decision thereof, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Needless to say that if the petitioner makes any request for issuing copy of the statement of accounts, the same shall be given to him. A decision as directed above shall be taken at the earliest possible and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that the respondents shall restrain from proceeding with any further steps till the decision is taken as directed above and the same is intimated to the petitioner. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy//