IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15383 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VIJAYAN P.G., S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 54 YEARS, POOVELIPUTHENPURAYIL, MEMUGHAN KARA, MANEED VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PIRAVOM BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN , SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 15383 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 27th May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is questioning the course and conduct being pursued by the respondent Bank resorting to the steps under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction, contending that the matter has already been settled in the 'Bank Adalat' held on 25.02.2010. 2. The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.1.25 lakhs in the year 2000. But repayment could not be effected as agreed, under which circumstance, the Bank declared the account as 'NPA' and proceeded with further steps . It is also revealed from the materials on record that the Bank had issued Ext. P5 calling the petitioner to have negotiations in the course of Adalath proceedings scheduled to be held on 25.02.2010 with regard to the liability to satisfy 1.74 lakhs, which is stated as due from the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted Ext. P6, agreeing to have the liability W.P.(C) No. 15383 OF 2010 2 cleared in a phased manner, as mentioned therein, which fact is strongly rebutted from the part of the respondents stating that no such application has ever been filed. It is also stated that the steps taken by the Bank are perfectly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and are not assailable. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to press the challenge with regard to the course and proceedings taken by the respondent Bank by availing the statutory remedy, approaching the DRT or otherwise and that the only limited prayer pressed before this court is to permit the petitioner to clear the liability by way of reasonable installments. 5. After taking note of the submissions made from either side, this Court finds that, it is only fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on or before 15.06.2010 and the balance shall be cleared by way of 'five' equal monthly installments to be effected on or before the 15th of the W.P.(C) No. 15383 OF 2010 3 succeeding months. Subject to the above, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk