IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4074 of 2011(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SANKARANARAYANAN.P., S/O.LATE THEYYUNNI MENON, KEDARAM, PALLIKURUP.P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 2. K.BHARATHY, W/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, KEDARAM, PALLIKURUP.P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 3. KAMALAKSHY AMMA, W/O.LATE KUMARA PANICKER, PERUMBIDI HOUSE, PALLISSERI.P.O., MANNARKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., MANNARKKAD BRANCH, MANNARKKAD.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 582. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KUNNATHURMEDU.P.O., PALAKKAD-678 013. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4074/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 5/12/2009. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/01/2011 SECOND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DTD. 1/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4074 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the guarantors with respect to a loan availed by the son of petitioners 1 and 2 respectively among them, from the respondent Bank, for educational purposes. Consequent to default committed in payment of instalments the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P3 is the notice issued intimating about the proposal for initiating steps under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 2. According to the petitioners, even though the loanee had pursued his studies, he has not obtained any job till date. Therefore, the repayment could not be effected in a proper manner, is the contention. It is further contended that the coercive steps are now being pursued without taking note of considerable payments already effected and 2 W.P.(C).No.4074 of 2011 also without considering the offer made to regularise the account, by payment of the amounts remaining overdue in default. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions received, submitted that the total amount outstanding is more than ` 7 lakhs and the amount remaining overdue itself will come around ` 2,66,000/-. Since the loan account is in chronic default, the Bank is not favouring any of the request made by the petitioners. 4. Considering the fact that there is effective alternative remedy provided under the statute, it may not be justified for this Court to interfere with the proceedings. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made an understanding that the petitioners are not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges against the impugned proceeding. A limited prayer is made to permit regularisation of the loan account, on the basis of such 3 W.P.(C).No.4074 of 2011 undertakings. 5. Considering the submissions as stated above, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not proper, the petitioners can be permitted to regularise the account, especially in view of the fact that the repayment period is not over and that the petitioners have relinquished challenges against the proceedings. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire amount remaining overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any in due), in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.3.2011 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the 4 W.P.(C).No.4074 of 2011 petitioners 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 amounts as stipulated above, or any one of the future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further coercive steps on the basis of notices already issued and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from resorting to any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/