IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23861 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LANAMMA THOMAS, PROP.M/S.ARATTUKULAM ICE PLANT, MARIRIKKULAM NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY FINANCE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, UNION OF SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. R1 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P.KURUP, SC, U.B.I. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ASST.S.G.OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23861 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is conducting an Ice Plant and in connection with the said business, she availed a loan to the tune of Rs.Five lakhs from the respondent-bank on 29.7.2006 creating security interest over the property in question. But, since the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, there was no other alternative for the respondents but to declare the account as NPA and proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the bank submits on instructions that the steps taken by the bank are perfectly in conformity with the statutory prescriptions and not assailable under any circumstances. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the total outstanding amount is nearly Rs.Four lakhs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the default was never wilful; but because of some unforeseen circumstances including sudden downfall in the business, however adding that earnest efforts are being taken to clear the liability. He also submits that the petitioner does not intend to press any other WPC No.23861/2010 2 ground, nor does she intend to avail the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act by approaching the DRT and that the limited prayer pressed before this Court is to enable the petitioner to clear the liability by way of instalments. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court thinks it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire due amount by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before 30th August, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in clearing the outstanding amount as above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) vps WPC No.23861/2010 3 WPC No.23861/2010 4