IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11833 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI,PUTHENPURAYIL,PALLICKAL PO, KATTANAM, ALAPPUZHA 690 503. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,MAVELIKKARA BRANCH,ALAPPUZHA 690 101. 2. MADHU.V.G,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VAZHAPLAVIL,VARAVOOR, PULLOMPURAM,RANNY PO, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 672. ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.K.M.ANEESH FOR R1 SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.11833 of 2011-D ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner stood as guarantor with respect to an overdraft facility availed by the 2nd respondent from the 1st respondent Bank. Immovable property belonging to the petitioner was mortgaged for securing the loan. Consequent to default committed by the 2nd respondent, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Steps as contemplated under Section 13(4) was intimated through Ext.P2 notice, against the property in question. 2. According to the petitioner the default was committed by the 2nd respondent, and that the coercive steps against the property is now being pursued without acceding to request made by the petitioner to grant reasonable time to pay off the liability. 3. Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank submitted W.P(C) No.11833 of 2011-D 2 that the period of the overdraft facility stands expired and inspite of huge arrears, neither the petitioner nor the 2nd respondent is taking any earnest steps to wipe off the liability. Further it is stated that an O.A filed by the 1st respondent Bank is pending disposal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. Considering the effective remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, this Court may not justified in interdicting with the proceedings now initiated. However, in compliance of an interim order issued by this Court on 11.4.2011, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to permit payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, with a view to save the property from being sold. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability in a phased manner within a reasonable time. W.P(C) No.11833 of 2011-D 3 6. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is restrained from proceeding with any further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the 1st respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab