IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19898 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.THOMAS, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 46, PROPRIETOR, RADIONICS ACCESSORIES, CHUNGAM, KALPETTA, WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KALPETTA BRANCH, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT-673121. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN , SC SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19898 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DT.25.4.2004 EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPRT SUBMITTD BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALPETTA DT. 29.4.2004. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 23.10.2008. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 28.9.2010 EXT.P5. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 3.11.2010 EXT.P6. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE RESPONDENT 5.4.2011. RESPONDENT;'S EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 19898 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondent. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks facility to pay off the balance amounts due in instalments. The learned counsel for the bank points our that Section 13(2) notice was issued to the petitioner as early as in 2008 and the matter was settled for a certain amount. The petitioner only paid a part of the same and that is why again proceedings have been continued under the Act. He opposes the prayer of the petitioner for payment of balance amounts in instalments. 2. Having considered the rival contentions in detail, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The respondent shall permit the petitioner to pay off the balance amounts due in 6 equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the amount without default, further coercive recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in paying any one instalment, it W.P(C) No. 19898 of 2011 -: 2 :- would be open to the respondent to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/