IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16411 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, SREE BHADRA FUELS, SREESAILAM, MELAMCODE VALIYARA, VELLANADU P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SYNDICATE BANK, VELLNAD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY STANDING COUNSEL MR. R.S. KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16411 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 31st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who had availed two loans from the respondent Bank, is before this Court because of the steps taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has got serious contentions with regard to the course and proceedings that are being pursued by the Bank and the petitioner is very much intending to avail the statutory remedy. The grievance now pressed before this Court is to intercept further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 notice issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trivandrum, in CMP 1940 of 2010 filed under Section 14 of the Act and to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy within a reasonable time. 2. Heard the learned learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondents as well, who submits on instructions that, even though the loan account was declared as 'NPA' in the year 2007, the proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the Act were taken only in the month of September, 2009. Despite, many an opportunity was given to the petitioner to clear the overdue amount, the same was not effectively utilized by the petitioner. It is also stated that, the Bank is ready and W.P. (C) No. 16411 of 2010 : 2 : willing to permit the petitioner to clear the outstanding liability, by way of reasonable installments. 3. However, taking note of the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner wants to challenge the sustainability of the steps taken by the Bank and considering other facts and figures, this Court finds that no interference is warranted on merits in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act. So as to enable the petitioner to avail such remedy, further steps pursuant to the orders, if any, in Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance for a period two weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd