IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 12332 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MADHUKUMARAN.T., S/O.THANKAPPAN, NO.2/3 KARINJALIPALLAM, CHITTUR PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICE, DHANALAKSHMI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680 002. 2. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., CHITTUR BRANCH, CHITTUR PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 12332 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Coercive steps of recovery initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed in repayment of a working capital loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P2 is the notice issued intimating steps under section 13(4). According to the petitioner, the coercive steps are now being pursued without considering the request made by him for permitting regularisation of the account by payment of the amounts in default. 2. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank on the basis of instructions submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year 2008 to the tune of Rs.1,32,250/- with a repayment period of 4 years and the petitioner had committed consecutive defaults in payment of the monthly instalments. It is WP(C) .12332/2011 2 stated that even the amount over due for payment will come to Rs.75,000/-. Since the loan account is in chronic default, the respondent is not favouring to permit regularisation of the account. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, interference of this court is not at all warranted in view of the effective alternative remedy available under section 17(1). However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay off the amount over due for payment and to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule. It is further undertaken that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that he is relinquishing all challenges. 4. I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the account, considering the fact that the petitioner had relinquished all challenges against the proceedings . 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the WP(C) .12332/2011 3 petitioner remitting the amount in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses, if any due) in 2 (two) equal instalments , falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before 31.5.2011 along with the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months . 6. If payment of the defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. Needless to say that if the petitioner makes any approach before the respondent, he shall be issued with copy of the statement of accounts in order to facilitate the payment as directed above. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .12332/2011 4