IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1181 of 2007(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DEVARAJAN D., KADAMPATTU HOUSE, PUTHIYAVILA NORTH, PATTOLI MARKET, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. L.I.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REP. BY ITS AREA MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANDALLOOR, KAYAMKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVACIS R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: EXHIBITS PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ......................................................................... WP (C) NO. 1181 OF 2007 ............................................... Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the second respondent under SARFEASI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner. Various contentions have been raised both legal as well as factual. When the matter came for consideration before this Court earlier, coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- and continued to deposit Rs.20,000/- every month. Since the condition was not fully satisfied, the interim order was not brought up for extension and it got expired. The petitioner has now come up with fresh I.A. No. 3650/2010, for revival and extension, also bringing it to the notice of the Court that pursuant to further steps taken by the second respondent, WP (C) NO. 1181 OF 2007 2 the physical possession of the building/properties has already taken over by the second respondent, which is sought to be reconveyed 2. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits on instructions and also with reference to the counter affidavit already filed in the matter in February, 2007 that, at the time of filing the Writ Petition, the liability was only about 7.39 lakhs, whereas the same has now got mounted up to a sum of about Rs.9,00,000/-. It is stated that the liability actually arises under two different loans which were sanctioned in the year 1997-1999. Since there was repeated defaults, and the liability was not satisfied on time by remitting the due installments, the second respondent declared the account of the petitioner as NPA and proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act. On approaching the concerned District Magistrate for necessary assistance, the petition filed in this regard has WP (C) NO. 1181 OF 2007 3 allowed and it was in the said circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. The learned counsel submits that, even though the petitioner satisfied the initial deposit of Rs.50,000/- as ordered by this Court in the interim order, subsequent monthly installments to be made @ Rs.20,000/- were not effected, but for the payments up to May, 2007 (that is the initial 3 installments ). In this circumstance, the second respondent resorted to further proceedings and the possession of the building and premises was taken over on 24-02-2010. Learned counsel also submits that unless and until the petitioner clears the substantial portion of the liability to an extent of Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 30-03-2010, no further leniency deserves to be extended. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the default was never because of any wilful laches or deliberate negligence, but for same unforeseen circumstances WP (C) NO. 1181 OF 2007 4 involving major treatment of the son of the petitioner incurring huge expenditure. It is also submitted that, the petitioner himself is a LIC agent and the 2nd respondent being LIC Housing Financial Limited, the petitioner earnestly desires to wipe out the entire liability within the shortest possible time and for this reason, the petitioner does not want to press any of the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner waives his right for approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal, availing the statutory remedy and that the petitioner might be permitted to clear the outstanding amount in a phased manner. 4. To prove the bona fides of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already taken 3 demand drafts for a total value of Rs.1,00,000/- which are being handed over to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and payment of the said amount, as above, is WP (C) NO. 1181 OF 2007 5 recorded. 5. After considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 30 - 03 - 2010 and yet another one lakh on or before 15-04-2010. The remaining liability shall be cleared by the petitioner by way of 'five' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before May, 2010; to be followed by the subsequent installments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that, on satisfying the initial liability of Rs.1,00,000/-, the physical possession of the building shall be restored to the petitioner. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner, in satisfying the liability as above, the second respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps, for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Bank shall furnish a proper statement of accounts to the petitioner showing the WP (C) NO. 1181 OF 2007 6 balance amount, on satisfying the first installment of Rs.1,00,000/- The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc