IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11007 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BINIL THOMAS, BINCY VILLA, THOLICODE P.O. PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM. J. SAM. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11007 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, has already been taken over possession by the respondent Bank, through proceedings initiated under Section 14(1) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps as mentioned above were taken without acceding to the request made by the petitioner to regularise the loan account. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to permit regularisation after accepting the overdue amounts. On the alternative, it is prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to settle the dues under 'One Time Settlement Scheme' formulated by the Reserve Bank of India. 3. Heard; learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that there was a settlement arrived between the petitioner and the respondent, in which the petitioner was given considerable waiver and was directed to make payment of the amounts due in a phased manner. In terms W.P.(C).11007/11 -2- of such settlement the petitioner was directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 30.4.2011. But the petitioner had failed to comply with such stipulations. It is further mentioned that the property in question, which is a cashew factory, has already been taken over possession by the respondent and that they are proceeding with further steps. 4. Considering the effective statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act as well as considering the factual contentions as narrated above, I am of the view that none of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner can be granted in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondent offering concrete proposals for payment of the entire liability in a phased manner or seeking 'One Time Settlement' of the account by claiming waiver of amounts to the possible extent. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the respondent Bank considering any such approach if made and taking appropriate decision thereof. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations contained herein above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb