IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34635 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- VISALAKSHI, W/O.MARUTHAMUTHU, AGED 65, 8/436, KRISHNA NIVAS, UDHUVAKKAD, PALLATHERI, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER (DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER), CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI. JACOB SEBASTIAN,SC, CSB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 34635 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a guarantor with respect to three loans availed from the respondent Bank, by the loanee. The property belonging to the petitioner is mortgaged for securing the loans. Consequent to default committed, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and Ext.P1 series notices were issued under section 13 (2) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the property in question would fetch a market value of atleast Rs.40 lakhs whereas the amounts demanded under Ext.P1 series notice is about Rs. 7 lakhs only. Since the respondent is proceeding for hasty steps for dispossession of the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. 2. It is noticed that the impugned proceedings is only at the stage of issuing notice under section 13(2). Petitioner is having effective remedies against the demand as provided under the statute. Considering the dictum laid by the Supreme Court in WP(C).34635/2010 2 United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (8) SCC 110) it is not at all proper for this court to interfere with the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, that too at the stage of issuing notice under section 13(2). However, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that she is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. On the other hand, limited request made is only to permit payment of the entire amount in a phased manner, within a period of three months. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the respondent Bank is proceeding with further steps under the SARFAESI Act. 4. Having considered the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges on merits, I am inclined to permit the limited prayer of the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time, in instalments. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to Ext.P1 series notices, provided the petitioner remits the entire WP(C).34635/2010 3 amount due along with interest accruing in future, in three equal monthly instalments starting from 15.12.2010 onwards and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 6. 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 challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).34635/2010 4