IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13539 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHRI. SIRAJUDHEEN, S/O KASSIM PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, VALAYIL VADAKKETHIL, KANNAMPALLYBHAGAM, KAYAMKULAM. NOW RESIDING AT THAJ MANZIL, METHALA, KODUNGALLOOR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, P.B.NO.32, NELSON BUILDING, KAYAMKULAM-690502, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 690 502. BY ADV. SRI. P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13539 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against coercive steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank. Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, intimating steps taken as contemplated under section 13(4) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2006 with a repayment period extending to 10 years. It is submitted that the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to the request made for permitting regularisation, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts in default. 3. Learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that the total outstanding is more than Rs.64 2 W.P.(C).No.13539 of 2011 lakhs and even the instalments in default will come around Rs.18.55 lakhs. Since the account is in chronic default, the Bank is not favouring regularisation. 4. Since the petitioner has got an effective remedy, under section 17(1) of the Act, it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to permit regularisation, on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is not pursuing any statutory remedy. 5. Even though interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account, considering the relinquishment of challenges and also considering the fact that the period of repayment will expire only in the year 2016. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest 3 W.P.(C).No.13539 of 2011 and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.6.2011 and on or before 15th day of the succeeding 3 months, along with payment of regular instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to make payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. 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 respondent will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/