IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2079 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- J. SOMASUNDARAM, PRIMROSE, 4/1920, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION II, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES) BY SC SRI SAJI VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT READ ORDER DATED 20.1.2009, NO APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT FILED. WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED. 9.2.2009 SD/- THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk //true copy// PA TO JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 2079 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) The 3rd respondent Bank had proceeded against the secured assets, which are the immovable property, belong to the petitioner and his family members, by invoking section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act and the Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the loan was availed under a special scheme sponsored by the State Government namely, 'Akshaya Project' and under the scheme the bank was obliged to allow the facility without insisting for any collateral security. Hence it is contended W.P.(C) No. 2079/2009 2 that the coercive steps initiated against the secured asset is not sustainable. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent the allegation was refuted and it is contended that the loan in question was not sanctioned under any sponsored scheme of the Government. In a counter affidavit filed by the addl. 5th respondent, who is the Director of the Government Sponsored Project (Akshaya Project) it is mentioned that the Government had approved only a loan availed by the petitioner from the Canara Bank under the project and the loan which is the subject matter of the impugned proceedings is not a loan availed under any scheme of the Government. Further it is noticed that the petitioner has not chosen to avail the statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act. Hence this writ petition cannot be entertained on the merits of the contentions raised. 4. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready W.P.(C) No. 2079/2009 3 and willing to pay off the entire liability, provided reasonable time is granted to make payment in instalments. It is noticed that by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/- during the pendency of the writ petition. Even though learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank is not favouring in granting any extended period, I am of the opinion that indulgence can be shown to the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to keep in abeyance dispossession of the petitioner and sale of the immovable property, provided the entire balance amount, including future interest and expenses if any due, is paid by the petitioner in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15-10-2010 and on or before the 15th of every succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default, the 3rd respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps W.P.(C) No. 2079/2009 4 pursuant to the orders already issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.