IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7240 of 2011(D) ------------------------- CMP.669/2011 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL SALAM, KAMPIVALAPPIL HOUSE, KAKKAZHAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA P.O., PIN-688011. BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7240 of 2011-D ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a term loan as well as a housing loan, availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Immovable property, which is the common security with respect to both loans was proceeded against by invoking Section 14(1) of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property and Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. It is noticed that, inspite of availability of effective alternative remedy, the petitioner has not chosen to approach the statutory authority. Therefore, this Court is not justified in interdicting with the proceedings now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. W.P(C) No.7240 of 2011-D 2 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a limited prayer to permit regularisation of both the loan accounts, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is not intending to invoke any statutory remedy and that he is relinquishing all challenges. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, submitted that the term loan was availed in the year 2007 and the housing loan was availed in the year 2006. But the petitioner defaulted payments consecutively and both the accounts were classified as 'NPA'. It is further submitted that the amount overdue for payment in both the accounts together will come to more than Rs.5.5 lakhs. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the account, since the petitioner had relinquished all challenges and since it is noticed that the repayment period has not expired. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further W.P(C) No.7240 of 2011-D 3 steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts overdue for payment in both the accounts (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 6. If payments of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future instalments in terms of the original schedule. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments the respondent 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 such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab