IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23045 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SARAKUTTY E.U., ENCHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBADAVOM P.O., ELANJI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. MR. M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOOTHATTUKULAM, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. MR. P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 23045 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs. 3 lakhs from the respondent Bank in the year 2002, creating security interest over the property in question. But, the repayments were not all prompt and the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, under which circumstances, the Bank proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act, after declaring the account as 'NPA', which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, with reference to the counter affidavit filed, submits that, averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition do not keep right track of truth. It is stated that, much leniency has already been extended to the petitioner, in spite of which, the petitioner has not effectively utilized the same. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was even given the benefit of 'OTS' but the petitioner did not choose to honour the commitment in clearing the arrears; simultaneously adding that the steps taken by the Bank are strictly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. It is stated that, the outstanding liability of the W.P. (C) No. 23045 of 2010 : 2 : petitioner is Rs. 5,35,653/-, out of which Rs. 3,01,336/ is in respect of the defaulted EMIs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the default was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen circumstances, involving the treatment expenses incured in connection the with the ailment of the petitioner himself and that alternate arrangements are being made so as to wipe off the entire liability. It is stated that, the petitioner does not intend to press the contentions raised in the Writ Petition or in Annexure R1 (a) lawyer notice, produced along with the counter affidavit of the respondents. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner also does not intend to avail the statutory remedy as provided under Section 17 of the Act and that the limited relief sought for is to grant the benefit of installments so as to wipe off the entire liability. 4. Taking note of the submissions raised from either side and also considering the fact that the loan availed by the petitioner is in 'housing sector', this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the entire liability by way of 'ten' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month; to be followed by similar installments to be effected or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated W.P. (C) No. 23045 of 2010 : 3 : as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps, for realization of the entire amount in lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd