IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21538 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.RAJAN, KAMALAMMA BHAVAN, MUNDUVILA, KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, EAST FORT. 2. THE MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD., KANJIRAMKULAM P.O. STANDING COUNSEL Mr.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 21538 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.3,60,000/- from the second respondent Bank on 18.03.2005, after creating security interest over the property of 13.25 cents and the residential building situated thereon. It is revealed from the sequence of events that, the petitioner could not keep his words in repaying the due amount as scheduled, under which circumstance, the respondent Bank was compelled to proceed with further steps invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act, as evident from Ext.P4, which in turn is sought to be intercepted in the Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, every earnest effort is being made to wipe off the entire liability to the Bank and that the default was never due to any wilful laches or deliberate negligence, but for some unforeseen circumstances. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, as per Ext.P5 agreement for sale, the petitioner has made arrangements to sell the property in question, to be effected on or before 27.01.2010 and that the sale proceeds will be utilized for clearing the loan amount to the Bank for which a minimum time of 'six months' is sought for. WPC NO.21538/2009 2 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that, the submissions made from the part of the petitioner that after issuance of Ext.P1 notice under Section 13(2), the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/- as borne by Ext.P3 is correct. However, in view of the huge liability involved, it is also necessary that, the petitioner prove his bonafides by remitting a portion of the liability, so as to provide further time for clearing the transaction. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay a further sum of Rs.50,000/- within one month and yet another sum of Rs.50,000/- within one month thereafter. The balance amount including further interest and cost shall be paid on or before 31.01.2010. Subject to the above, steps taken by the respondent Bank pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in clearing the liability as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps, from the stage where it stands now, for realization of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc