IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7067 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SALIM M., S/O.MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, AGED 50 YEARS, MP 8/110, KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, KATTAKAL, KUTHIRAKULAM P.O., VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OP. BANK LTD., REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER/REGIONAL MANAGER, OVERBRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OP. BANK LTD., STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7067 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a mortgage loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated, and the immovable property, which is a secured assets, was taken over possession under Section 13(4) of the Act, by issuing Ext.P2 notice. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2008 and the repayment period is extending upto 10 years, which will expire only in the year 2018. It is stated that, the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to his request for permitting regularisation of the loan account. 3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that, the loan account is in chronic default and 2 W.P.(C).No.7067 of 2011 there is a total outstanding of Rs.5,25,250/- as on 1.6.2010. It is further submitted that even the amounts overdue for payment will come to more than Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Considering availability of effective statutory remedy, it is not proper and justified on the part of this Court to have any interdiction with the proceeding, especially in view of dictum laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in United Bank of India V. Sathyawati Tondon & Ors. (2010(8) SCC 110). 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation of the loan account, on the basis that the amount overdue will be paid immediately. The above request is made on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and that he is relinquishing rights if any, to invoke statutory remedy. 6. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the opinion that, even though interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting 3 W.P.(C).No.7067 of 2011 regularisation of the account taking note of the fact that the term will expire only in the year 2018 and also considering relinquishment of the challenges made by the petitioner. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property in question, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 8. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above 4 W.P.(C).No.7067 of 2011 or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notice already issued, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/