IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23947 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KARUNAKARAN K.M., KALAREYALMEETHAL HOUSE PALAYADUNADA, KARUVANCHERI, VATAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORIZED OFFICER) VATAKARA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. P.O.NUT STREET, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN - 673 101 2. SECRETARY, VATAKARA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD, P.O.NUT STREET, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN - 673 101 ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 23947 of 2010-P ---------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is approaching this Court aggrieved by coercive steps initiated by the respondents for realization of amounts due under a loan availed by the petitioner resorting to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P1 notice was issued to the petitioner informing that the Bank is proposing to invoke Section 14(1) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. On receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation seeking waiver of interest/penal interest and also seeking time for payment of entire balance. Since coercive steps are being threatened without considering Ext.P2 representation, the petitioner is approaching this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that as on 16.8.2010, an amount of Rs.2,53,211/- is due. However, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes correctness of the amount. W.P(C) No. 23947 of 2010-P 2 3. The subject matter pertains to proceedings proposed under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The statute provided effective alternative remedies to the petitioner to challenge such proceedings including the appellate remedy as provided under Section 17(1) of the Act. Hence it is not proper for this Court to entertain this writ petition on its merits. 4. However, Sri.Pulikool Aboobacker, learned counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence in granting four months time for paying the entire balance amount. He also requested for a direction to the Bank to consider the disputes regarding correctness of the amounts demanded. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank is not favouring such request on the allegation that the loan account is in chronic default. 5. Having considered facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, eventhough an interference on merits is not possible, some indulgence can be shown in the matter permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable period. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- within a period of one month from today. On payment of said amount, the W.P(C) No. 23947 of 2010-P 3 respondents will consider the disputes raised by the petitioner regarding correctness of the balance amount and shall furnish a statement showing a net balance payable by the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay off the entire liability within a period of three months thereafter, failing which the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps under the SARFAESI Act. 7. It is made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings, either before this Court or before any other forum. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab