IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38719 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BASHEER, KOODATHAL, PADANILAM.P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KALLAI BRANCH, KOZHIKODE – 673 106. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REION-II, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE – 673 106. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.38719 of 2010-L ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a loan availed from the respondents, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner availed the loan in question as early as in the year 2005. Since he failed to repay the amounts, the loan account was classified as 'NPA' in 2006 itself. Thereafter, when proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated, the same was challenged by the petitioner through various writ petitions filed before this Court as well as in a securitisation application filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 3. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now being pursued without taking note of the fact that the W.P(C) No.38719 of 2010-L 2 petitioner had already remitted amounts required for regularising the defaulted payments. 4. In the statement filed by the counsel for the respondents, the history of the proceedings is narrated elaborately. It is mentioned that during pendency of the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, an interim stay was granted subject to conditions. But the petitioner had failed to remit the amount stipulated and he filed review petition, which was also dismissed. It is further stated that, on invoking Section 14(1) the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had now appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over physical possession of the property. It is also stated that the property has already been proclaimed for sale. In the reply affidavit filed, the petitioner contends that the condition imposed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal had already been complied with and the securitisation application was disposed of only because the respondent Bank had withdrawn the steps initiated under Section 13(4). 5. However, considering the fact that the petitioner W.P(C) No.38719 of 2010-L 3 had already approached this Court as well as the Debt Recovery Tribunal, on more than one occasion, and also considering the fact that the present steps which is impugned in this writ petition was not challenged in any proceedings under Section 17(1), I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Eventhough, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the overdue amounts stands cleared payment, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the Bank can be compelled to permit regularisation of the account. 6. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. Eventhough interference on merits is not possible, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a short period. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance dispossession W.P(C) No.38719 of 2010-L 4 and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.3.2011 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 condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the recovery proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab