IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6462 of 2010(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SRI. MUHAMMED, S/O.LATE CHECKO, PUNNATH HOSUE, A.R.NAGAR, VENGARA VILLAGE TIRURANGADI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT(EXPIRED) * SMT. BIYAKUTTY, W/O.LATE CHECKO, PUNNATH HOSUE, A.R.NAGAR, VENGARA VILLAGE TIRURANGADI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. * IS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DECEASED ORIGINAL PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 31/03/2010 IS IA.NO.4326. BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. BANK OF BARODA REPRESENTED BY SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER TIRUR BRANCH.MALAPPURAM. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF BARODA, TIRUR BRANCH, MALAPPURAM. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC. SRI.K.M.ANEESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.6462 of 2010-G ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The original first petitioner, who is no more had filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P3, P4 and P6 notices issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The loan in question was availed from the respondent Bank by his mother, for which he was the guarantor. At the time when the writ petition was filed the first petitioner was suffering from acute renal problems and was undertaking continuous dialysis. Grievance voiced was that on receipt of Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner had approached the Bank by submitting Ext.P5 request seeking time to regularize the account, despite the Bank proceeded with issuing Ext.P6 notice directing to handover possession of the secured assets. The mother of the petitioner is impleaded as additional petitioner, subsequent to death of the first petitioner. 2. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 1.3.2010 granting stay on condition of payment of W.P(C) No.6462 of 2010-G 2 Rs.1,00,000/-. It is conceded that the condition has already been complied with. 3. Eventhough interference on merits with respect to the proceedings under SARFAESI Act is not possible in this proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner, narrating the pathetic financial condition of the additional petitioner impleaded, pleaded for indulgence of this Court in permitting regularisation of the loan account by payment of the defaulted amounts within a reasonable time in instalments. Eventhough the learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank is not favouring such request, I am inclined to show indulgence considering the special circumstances attendant in the case. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further steps pursuant to Exts.P3, P4 and P6 in abeyance, subject to condition of the additional petitioner remitting the entire arrears due for regularization of the amount, in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.9.2010 and on or before the last day of every succeeding month. The regular instalments due during this period also should W.P(C) No.6462 of 2010-G 3 be paid on the respective due dates, along with such payment. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of two or more consecutive instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.6462 of 2010-G 4