IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9679 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JAMES K.GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KANNAMPUZHA TIMBERS AND GOOD WOOD INDUSTRIES, NEAR MUNICIPAL STADIUM, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORIZED OFFICER, RASMECCC, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.PIN- 686 001 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV.SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL, SC FOR SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9679 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in effecting repayments in a 'cash credit facility' availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The respondent Bank sought to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset, by resorting to Section 14(1) on approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. The petitioner was issued with a notice as evidenced from Ext.P5 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is further stated that, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court court had already appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over physical possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioner, the proceedings were pursued without complying the mandatory procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act. It is contended that the respondent had failed to issue any notice with respect to the actions taken as contemplated under Section 13(4) and thereby the petitioner was prevented from resorting to statutory remedy as provided under Section 17(1). However, it is contended that the coercive W.P.(C).9679/11 -2- steps were now threatened without acceding to request made by the petitioner to keep in abeyance such steps on the basis of an offer made to make payments in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 3. Considering availability of the effective remedy provided under the statute, this court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings. However, as a gesture of indulgence, dispossession was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, which was reported as paid by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the cash credit facility in question was availed in the year 2005 and it was not renewed on an yearly basis. It is further stated that the industry in question for which the facility was availed, is not functioning and there is no stock available. Under such circumstances the steps were taken to recover the amounts from the secured asset, after complying with all the procedure contemplated under the statute, is the contention. 5. Confronted with the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit payment of the balance outstanding in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he is not W.P.(C).9679/11 -3- intending to pursue any statutory remedy. 6. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not possible, the petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the liability by paying the amounts due in instalments, within a reasonable time. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 8. In order to facilitate such payment the respondent will furnish a statement of accounts to the petitioner showing the exact balance outstanding. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondent 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