IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 233 of 2010(O) --------------------------- CMP.789/2010 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA SA.217/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- GIGI K.THOMAS, KAVALAKKAL HOUSE, CHERPAKACHERRY, CHEMPUMPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PROPRIETOR, GREEN PALACE HEALTH RESORTS, CHEMPUMPURAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KABEER PLAZA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH - 688 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P.KURUP, SC THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.(DRT).No.233 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in repaying a business loan availed from the respondent Bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. The respondents had proceeded against the property which is the secured asset invoking provisions under Section 14(1) of the Act and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was approached seeking assistance for dispossessing the petitioner from the property. 2. It is conceded that, against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act the petitioner had already approached the statutory authority, the Debts Recovery Tribunal. But he failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in an interim order issued by that Tribunal. Therefore coercive steps of recovery was further proceeded with. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is filed OP(DRT).233/10 -2- seeking indulgence for permitting payment of the balance amount due. 3. Eventhough I was not inclined to entertain this writ petition in view of the pendency of the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, on the basis of the persuasive submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, dispossession was directed to be kept in abeyance subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. The petitioner had complied with the stipulation. 4. Heard, standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is stated that, after crediting all payments, a sum of around Rs.32 lakhs is still due. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in permitting payment of the balance amount within a reasonable time, in instalments, on the basis of the specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all the challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to pursue the matter pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 5. Under the above circumstances I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing payment of the balance amount within a short period, in instalments. OP(DRT).233/10 -3- Accordingly the respondents 1 and 2 are restrained from proceeding with any further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) on or before 15.2.2011 and a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs only) on or before 15.3.2011. The entire balance outstanding should be paid on or before 15th April, 2011. The petitioner will take necessary steps for withdrawal of the securitisation application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, forthwith. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, 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, either before this court or before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, either by pursuing the existing application or by filing any fresh matter. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb