IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25999 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANANTHARAMAN, S/O.LEKSHMANAN, AGED 53 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, R.B.COIR INDUSTRIES, PERINGAMOOLA, KUTTIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK, OVERBRIDGE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UCO BANK, OVERBRIDGE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT OFFICER(COIR), CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COIR DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA COIR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,SC,KCWWFB,ALAPPUZHA FOR R5 SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 & 2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.25999 of 2010-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner had availed loan from respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of starting an industry engaged in the processing of coir fibre. The loan in question was availed in the year 2005. Consequent to default committed in repayment of amounts due under the loan account, the respondents 1 and 2 had proceeded against the immovable properties, which are the secured assets. According to the petitioner he is entitled for getting investment subsidy from respondents 3 and 4 to the tune of `10 lakhs and the respondents 3 and 4 were taking necessary steps for disbursal of the amount. Under such circumstances, contention of the petitioner is that, inspite W.P(C) No.25999 of 2010-Y 2 the respondent Bank had agreed for adjusting such subsidy amount, they are proceeding with coercive steps. Hence the petitioner is seeking interference of this Court to restrain the recovery steps. 2. It was noticed that the petitioner had not resorted to any of the remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act against steps initiated under Section 13(4). However, as a gesture of indulgence this Court had restrained respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding with further steps subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of `4,00,000/- and a further sum of `1,50,000/- by virtue of interim orders issued on different dates. It is submitted that the petitioner had complied with those conditions and a total amount of `5,50,000/- was remitted during pendency of this writ petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the 4th respondent had already considered the application submitted by the petitioner for sanctioning investment subsidy and found that the petitioner is not W.P(C) No.25999 of 2010-Y 3 eligible for the subsidy. It is further stated that the rejection of the application was already intimated by the 4th respondent through letters dtd.23.7.2008 and 9.3.2010. 4. Under the above circumstances, it is evident that, contention of the petitioner regarding proposed adjustment of the subsidy amount against arrears in the loan account, is unsustainable. Since the petitioner has not chosen to avail statutory remedy against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, and since there is no valid contention raised against the proceedings initiated, I am of the view that the writ petition deserve no merit. 5. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to invoke any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated. On the other hand, limited prayer of the petitioner is to permit to pay off the entire liability in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that eventhough interference on merits is W.P(C) No.25999 of 2010-Y 4 not possible, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account by paying the defaulted amount within a short time in instalments. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance further steps of recovery which is initiated on the basis of Ext.P9 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any accruing, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months. 8. 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 the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge