IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3552 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.V.ULLAS, S/O.VASU, 13/188, KOCHANGADI, KOCHI-682 002. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, PERUMANOOR, COCHIN-15. 2. A.V.BABU, S/O.VASU, 13/188, KOCHANGADI, KOCHI-682 002. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.3552 of 2011-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 notice issued under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), intimating steps as contemplated under Section 13(4), is the subject matter of challenge. Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, is now being proceeded against. Contention of the petitioner is that the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to his request for restructuring the loan account or for permitting regularisation. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that, the loan in question was availed in the year 2007 to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. But the petitioner had defaulted payments and the account was classified as 'NPA' in the year 2008. The total outstanding is more than Rs.7 lakhs. Even the amounts overdue itself will come to Rs.2.27 lakhs, is the submission. W.P(C) No.3552 of 2011-T 2 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to avail remedy as provided under Section 17(1), this Court may not be justified in interfering with. However, learned counsel for the petitioner had undertaken that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand, limited prayer is only to permit regularisation of the account by offering payment of the amounts within a short period. 4. Eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the view that, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account especially in view of the fact that he had relinquished all challenges and that the repayment period is not over. 5. 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, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the overdue amounts (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.3.2011 and on or before the 15th day of two succeeding W.P(C) No.3552 of 2011-T 3 months. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months, along with such payments. 6. If payments of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 7. 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. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the recovery proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab