IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26921 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ALEEMA AMEEN, W/O. MOHAMMED SHAFI, RESIDING AT 'SNEHATHEERAM', KURAKKANI, VARKALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN-696 141. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CELL, 1ST FLOOR, CHILD WELFARE COMPLEX, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. THE MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, THAMPANOOR BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26921 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) initiated against the immovable property which are secured assets with respect to a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Since the petitioner has not chosen to avail remedy provided under the statute against notices issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4), I am not at all inclined to entertain this writ petition on merits of the contentions raised. 3. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the loan in question was availed in the year 2008 and the repayment period is 15 years. Hence he appealed for indulgence of this court in permitting regularisation on the basis of an offer that the entire defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due will be paid within a short period. According to the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, the petitioner had committed consecutive defaults and therefore such prayer could not be allowed. W.P.(C).26921/10-M -2- 4. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions raised on either side, I am of the opinion that, eventhough interference on merits is not at all proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the loan account subject to conditions. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further coercive steps pursuant to the notices already issued in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire outstanding arrears (defaulted s along with interest and expenses due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.10.2010 and on or before the 15th day of two succeeding months. The petitioner shall also make payments of the regular monthly instalments due with respect to the above said 3 months, along with such payments. 6. If payments in the loan account is regularised as directed above, the respondent Bank shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments, in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps W.P.(C).26921/10-M -3- pursuant to the notices already issued. It is also made clear that the relief granted above will be subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb