IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27954 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANILKUMAR, KADAVUMTHURUTHU, MANGARAM, KONNI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.S.MEERA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UCO BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, FAISAL TOWERS, OPPOSITE COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) R2 BY GEORGE K. VARGHESE, SC, UCO BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.27954 of 2010-T ---------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010. 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, steps under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated, and property which is the secured asset was proceeded against. Ext.P5 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, pursuant to which the respondent had issued Ext.P6 notice intimating steps taken, as contemplated under Section 13(4). 2. According to the petitioner on receipt of the notice issued under Section 13(2), he had approached the first respondent and on the basis of the promise made to hold on further proceedings, an amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid, as evidenced from Exts.P3 and P4. But it is alleged that inspite of such payment, steps were pursued. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank is disputing all the said allegations. 3. It is noticed that, under the scheme of the statute, the W.P(C) No.27954 of 2010-T 2 petitioner has got an effective remedy to object or to represent against the notice of demand issued under Section 13(2). Further the petitioner is entitled to invoke remedies available under Section 17(1) in case coercive steps were proceeded against as contemplated under Section 13(4). The petitioner has not chosen to avail any such remedies and as such I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on merits. 4. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the writ petition came up for admission, steps for dispossession of the petitioner was stayed subject to the condition of payment of Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the said amount was already paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to permit regularisation of the loan account, on the basis that the repayment period is for 15 years. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the amount was remaining overdue for a long period and a sum of Rs.26,800/- is due for payment, after adjusting all payments effected. 5. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that, eventhough interference on merits is not at all warranted, some indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting the petitioner W.P(C) No.27954 of 2010-T 3 to regularise the account. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further steps of recovery pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 in abeyance, provided the petitioner makes payment of the entire defaulted amounts (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) on or before 15.11.2010, along with payment of regular instalments due from the month of November 2010 onwards along with such payments. It is made clear that if the payment of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM ab JUDGE