IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37264 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HAREENDRAN.K.,KAKKARAKAL HOUSE, MUNDAYAD POST, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REP.BY THE MANAGER, KANNUR TOWN BRANCH, KANNUR - 670 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ASSETS SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, CITY CREDIT CENTRE(RASMECCC)S.N. PARK ROAD, KANNUR-670001, 3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANNUR TOWN BARANCH - 670 001. BY SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37264 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a housing loan availed from the respondents, recovery steps under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The immovable property which is the secured asset was proceeded against and Ext.P1 notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 was issued intimating steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. Considering the effective alternate remedy available and also considering the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110), it is not justified on the part of this Court to interdict the proceedings. However, considering the fact that the property in question is the residential building, dispossession was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the amount W.P(C) No.37264 of 2010-G 2 has already been remitted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in permitting regularisation of the loan account since the repayment period is not over. On behalf of the petitioner it is undertaken that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that he is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and even the amount in arrears will come to more than Rs.1.20 lakhs. 5. Considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not possible, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account by paying the amount in default within a short time. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the 31.3.2011, along with payment of W.P(C) No.37264 of 2010-G 3 regular instalments due with respect to the above said two months. 7. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab