IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15963 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------ CRMP.1667/2011 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. JOSE KURIAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN, KALAMBATTU HOUSE, NEAR ST.RAPHEL'S CHURCH, KALLUR, TRICHUR. 2. JANCY, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. JOSE KURIAN, KALAMBATTU HOUSE, NEAR ST.RAPHEL'S CHURCH, KALLUR, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSY ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TRICHUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER SRI. A.V.JOHNY. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., MANNAMPETTA BRANCH, THRISSUR-680 325. 3. C.R.ANIRUDHAN, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, CHEENAPPILLY HOUSE, NENMANIKKARA, PADUKAD-680 301. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SRI.L.RAM MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.15963/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PASSBOOK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER LOAN ACCOUNT NO.12557300009532. P1(a):- COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER LOAN ACOCUNT NO.12557300008260. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25.3.2011 IN CRL.MP.1667/2011 PASSED BYU THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL,THRISSUR. P4(a):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON OF METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL, THRISSUR DTD. 31.5.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JDUGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15963 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioners to respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners do not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioners only seek facility to regularise the loan account by paying off the defaulted instalments and to continue to pay the instalment payments in accordance with the original loan agreement. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. According to him, despite sufficient time given to the petitioner, the petitioner has not regularise the loan account. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. This Court passed the following interim order on 14.6.2011. “urgent notice on admission to respondents 1 and 2 by speed post returnable within two weeks. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed pursuant to Ext.P3 notice, if not already dispossessed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 30/6/2011”. It is admitted that the same has been complied with. The learned W.P.(C)No.15963/11 2 counsel for the bank submits that even if this Court is inclined to permit the petitioners to regularise the loan account, the petitioners are liable to pay an additional amount of Rs.88,262/- as on 30.6.2011 for regularising the loan account. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioners shall pay the amounts required for regularising the loan account within one month from today. Thereupon the bank shall regularise the loan account and permit the petitioners to pay the balance instalments in accordance with the original loan agreement on the due dates. If the petitioners comply with the above direction and continue to pay the instalments on due dates as per the loan agreement, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioners commit default in payment of the defaulted amounts and any of the future instalments, it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.15963/11 3 W.P.(C)No.15963/11 4