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. 13657 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RANI RONEY, AGED 45, W/O. RONEY MATHEW, THAKADIYEL HOUSE, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. RONEY MATHEW, AGED 52, S/O. LATE MATHEW, OF -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. PIN – 686 575. 2. MANAGER, DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., 493/G, BUSINESS CENTRE, KOTTAYAM – 686 001. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR – 680 001. 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, DHANALAKSHMI BANK LIMITED, KERALA SQUARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGION, IIND FLOOR, FABILITY SQUARE, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN – SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.13657 of 2011-F ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed by the petitioners in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. A reply submitted by the petitioners to the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) was considered by the respondent Bank. The request of the petitioners for allowing time for payment of the arrears, was not acceded to, in Ext.P6 reply. 2. According to the petitioners coercive steps are now being threatened for dispossession and sale of the property, which is the secured asset. It is submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay off the entire liability within a short time, in a phased manner. Under such premise the petitioners seek interference of this Court. W.P(C) No.13657 of 2011-F 2 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the total outstanding is more than Rs.5 lakhs and the period of the overdraft facility stands expired. He also points out availability of effective alternative remedy which will prevent the petitioners from agitating the matter before this Court. 4. Considering the effective remedy available under the statute, it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to permit the petitioners to pay off the entire liability in a phased manner within a reasonable time, on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges and that they are not pursuing any statutory remedy. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioners to pay off the entire liability, in view of the relinquishment of challenges. W.P(C) No.13657 of 2011-F 3 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery, provided the petitioners remit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 15.6.2011 and the balance amount in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.7.2011 and on or before 15th day of succeeding months. 7. 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 condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.13657 of 2011-F 4