IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16779 of 2011(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SAYED THAHA ,S/O.CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL AGED 33 YEARS, SAFA MANZIL, POST AKODE, VAZHAKKAD VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI, SRI.V.A.SATHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4329, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER), HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 505. BY ADV. MR.V. KRISHNA MENON, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 16779 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROPERTY SALE NOTICE U/S.13 OF THE SARFAESI ACT DATED 11/11/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTICE SENT BY THE ADVOCATE- COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 16779 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed in repaying a business loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. On invoking section 14(1), the respondent Bank had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requiring the petitioner to handover possession of the property in question. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the coercive steps are now being pursued without considering the request made for permitting payment of the amounts due in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 3. Heard; Standing Counsel appearing for the WP(C) 16779/2011 2 respondent Bank. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and as on today the outstanding balance is more than Rs.4.84 lacks. Since the petitioner had failed to remit any considerable amounts even after issuance of repeated notices, the Bank is not favouring in granting any extended period. 4. Considering the effective remedy provided under section 17(1), it may not be justified on the part of this court in interfering with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit payment of the balance outstanding in instalments, within a reasonable time, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights to invoke statutory remedy, if any available. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not called for, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown to permit the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability in instalments, within a short time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further proceedings for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to WP(C) 16779/2011 3 condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.7.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings, either before this court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) 16779/2011 4