IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6993 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P GOPAKUMAR. KAVICHERRY HOUSE, AIMURY P.O, POOPANI (VIA) ERNAKULAM-683544. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE HDFE BANK LTD., SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 682025,REPRESENTED BPY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HDFC BANK LTD, SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025. ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH FOR R1&2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 6993 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition including the contention that the steps taken by the Bank declaring the account as 'NPA' are not correct or sustainable, having not satisfied the requirement under Section 31 (j) of the Act. It is further contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to have the loan account regularized by remitting the due amount by way of reasonable instalments, assuring that he will continue to effect the regular EMIs without fail. 2. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that a sum of Rs.2,24,131/- is still to be cleared by the petitioner as 'overdue' amount, including the instalment payable in respect of the month of March, 2010. Unless and until the said amount is cleared, the question of regularization of loan account is not liable to be entertained, submits the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to press the contention raised with reference WP(C) No.69963/2010 2 to Section 31 (j) of the Act and that the petitioner might be permitted to clear the 'overdue' amount by giving some breathing time. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to clear the 'overdue' amount by way of ‘four’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be cleared on or before the 30th of this month, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. This will be over and above the liability of the petitioner to satisfy the regular EMIs as well. It is made clear that, if any default is made by the petitioner with regard to the payment of 'overdue' amount as above, or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc