IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3648 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.VISWARAJAN, THUNDUVILA VEEDU, SITHARA JN., KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOTTIYAM BRANCH, KOLLAM.PIN- 691 423 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), UNION BANK, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 012 R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3648 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, is under challenge in this writ petition. It is evident that, by invoking Section 14(1) the respondents had already approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner appointed by that court has issued Ext.P6 notice requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan was availed in the year 2007 with a repayment period extending to 162 months, which will expire only in the year 2020 and the coercive steps were now being pursued without acceding to the request for permitting regularisation, on the basis of offer made for payment of the amount overdue, within a short period. 3. Pursuant to an interim order issued by this court on 4.2.2011, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent submitted W.P.(C).3648/11 -2- that the account in question remains classified as 'NPA' since 2009 onwards and the petitioner was not taking any earnest efforts to make payment of any amounts. However, it is submitted that the overdue amounts (defaulted amounts) itself will come to more than Rs.80,000/-. The Bank is not favouring in permitting regularisation in view of the above situation. 4. Considering availability of the effective alternative remedy, it may not be justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings at this stage. However, learned counsel made an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that he is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand, a limited request is made to permit payment of the amounts in default within a short time to regularise the account. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not proper, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account in view of the fact that he had relinquished all challenges. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the W.P.(C).3648/11 -3- petitioner remitting the overdue amounts (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before 31.3.2011, along with payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payments of the defaulted amounts are regularised as directed above, then the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that, on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb