IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7835 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SMT.NEEMA V.V., D/O.VIJAYAN V.K., VADAKKOODAN HOUSE, THANNISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 2. SMT.BABY VIJAYAN, W/O.VIJAYAN, VADAKKOODAN HOUSE, THANNISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE FEDERAL BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SRI.B.RANJIT KUMAR SRI.L.RAM MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7835 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioners have availed an educational loan from the respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.3,84,000/-, during the year 2004. The period of repayment prescribed was 120 months which will expire only in the year 2014. Consequent to default committed in regular repayments, the immovable property, which is a secured assets, was proceeded against by invoking procedure under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P2 is the notice issued intimating steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. Through Ext.P3, the property was proclaimed for sale on 24.3.2011. 2. According to the petitioners, the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to their request for permitting regularisation, hence the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court in interdicting with the hasty steps taken. 2 W.P.(C).No.7835 of 2011 3. Consequent to an interim order issued by this Court on 16.3.2011, confirmation of sale if any takes place was stayed, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within 2 weeks thereof. It is reported that the petitioners have remitted the amount and the sale was not materialised on that day. 4. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that, the loan account is in chronic default and there is outstanding balance, overdue for payment, to the tune of more than Rs.2,83,000/-. 5. Considering availability of effective statutory remedy, it is not proper and justified on the part of this Court to have any interdiction with the proceeding, especially in view of dictum laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in a decision reported in United Bank of India V. Sathyawati Tondon & Ors. (2010(8) SCC 110). 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation of the loan account, on the basis that the amounts in default will be 3 W.P.(C).No.7835 of 2011 remitted within a short time. The above request is made on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and that they are relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 7. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the opinion that, even though interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the account, taking note of the fact that the term will expire only in the year 2014 and also considering the relinquishment of challenges raised by the petitioners. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property in question, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the amounts overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or 4 W.P.(C).No.7835 of 2011 before the last day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular instalments due for the respective months. 9. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 10. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of notices already issued and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/