IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12570 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.N.REGHUKUMAR,AGED 49, S/O.M.N.NARAYANA PILLAI,HAVING AT PERMANENT ADDRESS AT MULLAPPALLIL HOUSE,THUKALASSERY, THIRUVALLA.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA AND NOW RESIDING AT BETHEL,MELOORKONAM,KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, I.C.I.C.I.BANK LTD,RETAIL ASSETS DIVISION,FELICITY SQUARE, OPP.AG'S OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY SRI. K.K.M. SHERIFF, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.12570 of 2010-U ---------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a 'housing loan' of Rs.5.68 lakhs from the respondent Bank, which was not re-paid on time by remitting the regular EMIs. In the said circumstances, the Bank declared the account as NPA and proceeded with further steps invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, which was sought to be challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.32787 of 2009 culminating in Ext.P2 judgment, whereby the petitioner permitted to have the loan account regularised, on satisfying the 'overdue' amounts, simultaneously adding that the petitioner shall satisfy the regular EMIs as well. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that the petitioner did not avail the benefit given by this Court, by effecting 'overdue' amount, but for remittance a paltry sum of Rs.49,000/-. The submission made in this regard is seriously rebutted by the petitioner; though no proof is produced to show the details of remittances in compliance with the direction. W.P(C) No.12570 of 2010-U 2 The submission now made is that the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh. 3. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, because of the default on the part of the petitioner, in view of the mandate in Ext.P2, the physical possession has already been taken with the assistance of the Advocate Commissioner deputed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the total liability as on date is more than Rs.5.5 lakhs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to pursue the challenge with regard to the sustainability of the action taken by the Bank by approaching the DRT, but for some indulgence to clear the outstanding liability under the loan transaction by way of of reasonable monthly instalments. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire liability under the loan account by way of 'ten' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of April 2010; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, all further coercive proceedings W.P(C) No.12570 of 2010-U 3 shall be kept in abeyance. On satisfaction of the first instalment and on filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to effect vacant surrender, as and when demanded, the physical possession of the building shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith. It is also made clear that, if the petitioner fails to honour the commitment as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the due amount, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.12570 of 2010-U 4