IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 23958 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ U.KUTTIMALU, AGED 78 W/O. LTE VELYAUDHAN, RESIDING AT ULLASSERY HOUSE P.O.ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 312 BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE IST FLOOR, SOUTHERN TRADE TOWER,PUSHPA JN FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673002 2. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, PARAPPANANGADI BRANCH THAPPY'S TOWER, COURT ROAD, PARAPPANANGADI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 303 ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23958/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 24.6.08. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 17.7.08. P3:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 31.7.08 TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.23958 of 2008-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner availed a facility for housing purposes, defaulted in repayment and is faced with proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Section 13(2) notice was issued on 12-6-2007 and Section 13(4) measure has been taken, thereafter, on 17- 7-2008. The petitioner did not reply to the Section 13(2) notice and therefore, it may not be meaningful to insist on any particular statutory time gap for initiating action under Section 13 (4). 2.Be that as it may, Ext.P1 is issued more than one year after Section 13(2) notice dated 12-6-2007. Hence, there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for WP(C)23958/08 -: 2 :- the bank, on instructions, that after availing the loan, all that was done was a few columns were filled and the matter was left there and that the petitioner has every reason to assume that the funds were diverted. The petitioner, an elder lady of 78 years of age, going by her affidavit, does not show on record that the building was constructed or that she resides there. In the aforesaid scenario, repelling all contentions of the petitioner and confining the consideration to the only request finally urged, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner deposits Rs.2 lakhs within four weeks from now and continues to deposit at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from December, 2008, the impugned proceedings will stand deferred and ultimately dropped. If there is default in depositing any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefits of WP(C)23958/08 -: 3 :- this judgment will stand recalled and the writ petition will stand dismissed automatically enabling the respondents to forthwith proceed with further distress action without fresh notice to the petitioner. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/