IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5343 of 2011(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. S.SUNNY,S/O.SATYANESAN,MAMBRA ROAD, 30/1918-B,CHALIKKAVATTOM,VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 2. ANNAMMA SUNNY,W/O.S.SUNNY,30/1918-B, MAMBRA ROAD,CHALIKKAVATTOM,VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. BY ADV. SRI.P.BANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- SYNDICATE BANK,DESHABHIMANI JUNCTION, KALOOR,KOCHI-682017,REP.BY CHIEF MANAGER. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5343 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Proceedings initiated for sale of immovable property on the basis of Ext.P2 proclamation under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner had defaulted repayment of a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank, to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. The loan in question was availed in the year 2007 and the repayment period was 15 years. 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps of sale is now being pursued without considering various payments effected and also without considering offer made by the petitioner to pay off the amounts overdue (defaulted amounts) immediately. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion, when proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated. From Ext.P4 Judgment it is evident that the petitioner submitted before this court that the overdue amount as on that date will be cleared payment within W.P.(C).5343/11 -2- a breathing time. Accordingly this court permitted the petitioner to clear payment of overdue amounts within one month and on such event direction was issued to regularise the account permitting the petitioner to continue payment of future equal monthly instalments, without fail. 4. It is noticed that the petitioner had even failed to avail the benefit granted by this court under Ext.P4, eventhough it is contended that certain remittances were made after the said Judgment. It is also noticed that the practice of interdicting with steps initiated under the SARFAESI Act has been deprecated in strong words by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (8) SCC 110). In the case at hand, it is evident that benevolence has been shown by this court in permitting regularisation of the account by paying the amounts overdue. Having committed subsequent default the petitioner deserves no further indulgence. Therefore I am of the view that the prayer for permitting regularisation cannot be considered. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the total amount outstanding for payment is more than Rs.28 lakhs. However, learned counsel for petitioner made an appeal to permit payment of the entire amount within a reasonable time W.P.(C).5343/11 -3- in instalments. The above submission is considered on the basis that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. 6. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, the respondents are restrained from proceeding with further steps for sale and dispossession of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. Needless to say that the respondent shall give due credit to all payments effected by the petitioner and the details regarding the balance outstanding for payment shall be furnished to the petitioner as and when requested. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb