IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34623 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RASHEEDA SALIM, W/O.P.A.MUHAMMED SALIM, PUTHENKATTIL HOUSE, POONTHOPPU WARD, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA- 688 006. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, KABEER PLAZA, C.C.S.B.ROAD, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA-688 011. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, S.C, U.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34623 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by coercive steps of recovery initiated by the respondent Bank, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). According to the petitioner, she along with her husband had availed a housing loan from the respondent bank during the year 2006, by mortgaging immovable property belonging to them. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan, the respondent bank had proceeded against the property which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. On receipt of Ext.P2 the petitioner had submitted objections as evidenced from Ext.P3, complaining that all the amounts remitted by the petitioner has not been given credit properly. The objection was considered and Ext.P4 reply was issued by the respondent Bank, stating that there is no error with respect to the accounts and also offering that, if it is required, the bank is prepared to furnish statement of accounts. According to the petitioner, she had approached the respondent, seeking to permit regularisation of the loan account. But the coercive steps are being pursued W.P.(C).34623/10-C -2- without considering such request. Hence interference of this court was sought for. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the basis of instructions, submitted that apart from the two housing loans availed by the petitioner and her husband, a 'small trader loan' was also availed during the year 2007 to the tune of Rs.4.5 lakhs. It is submitted that the property in question now stands as common security for all the 3 loans. It is further stated that separate proceedings has already been initiated with respect to 'trader loan', under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. However, it is pointed out that the petitioner as well as her husband had defaulted repayment of all of the 3 loans and considerable amounts are pending payment towards the loan accounts in question. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not availed any of the remedies provided under the statute, I am of the view that interference by this court to restrain the proceedings is not at all justified and proper. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to regularise the loan accounts by paying the defaulted amounts. It is submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies and that she is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, indulgence of this court is W.P.(C).34623/10-C -3- sought for to permit the petitioner to regularise the accounts by paying the defaulted amounts along with interest due thereon in a phased manner. 4. Eventhough indulgence on merits is not possible, considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also that the repayment period of the loan accounts is not expired, I am of the view that regularisation of loan accounts can be permitted. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to the notice already issued, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting payment of the defaulted amounts (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in all the 3 loan accounts in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on or before 15th day of the succeeding months. The petitioner will also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months along with the above said payment. 6. If payments are made as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to make payment of the regular monthly instalments in future in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that if there is any default in payment of any of the amounts stipulated or future monthly instalments, W.P.(C).34623/10-C -4- the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps of recovery on the basis of the notices already issued. 8. The relief granted will be subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb