IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33330 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABOOBACKER.P.A, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, FATHIMA STORES, BANDIYODU, PO.MANGALPADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, BANDIYODU BRANCH, PO MANGALPADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KANNUR. 3. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,REP.BY CHAIRMAN,HEAD OFFICE,KANNUR. ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.K.M.ANEESH FOR R1 SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 33330 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against 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 petitioner in repayment of loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is the demand notice issued under Section 13 (2). Complaint of the petitioner is that, eventhough the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 representation subsequent to receipt of demand under Section 13 (2), the respondent Bank is proceeding with coercive steps without considering such representation. It is now brought to my notice that through Ext.P5 letter the Bank had given a reply to the petitioner. The requests made by the petitioner was not accepted and the 2 WP(C) No. 33330/2010 petitioner was intimated that if he is not discharging the liability within a period of 60 days, further steps will be pursued. 2. Considering the scheme of the statute, the petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy against further proceedings if any taken, on the basis of Ext.P5. Therefore it is not proper for this Court to entertain this Writ Petition and to grant any order restraining further proceedings of the Bank, especially in view of the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tondon and others [2020 (8) SCC 110]. 3. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. On the other hand, the limited prayer is to permit the petitioner to remit the entire liability 3 WP(C) No. 33330/2010 within a reasonable time, in instalments. 4. Having considered the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges I am inclined to grant such relief. 5. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to Exts.P3 and P5 notices, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with interest if any accruing, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.01.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. 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 and on such event the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challege. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc