IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 6519 of 2008(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JOBIS GEORGE, CHERUVALLIL HOUSE, EZHACHERY P.O., PALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 651. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF UCO BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH CYRILS TOWER, STATION ROAD, NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM AT ITS REGIONAL OFFICE OVER BRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE UCO BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, CYRILS TOWER, STATION ROAD, NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE K. VARGHESE, SC FOR BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6519 OF 2008 A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the challenge is against the proceedings initiated by the bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the 'Act') which has resulted in Ext.P4 possession notice. Although several contentions have been raised, when the writ petition was taken the only request made by the counsel for the petitioner is one for grant of instalment facility to discharge the liability and avoid distress sale of the properties now notified in Ext.P4. 2. The learned counsel for the bank, appearing on notice, submits that two loans were availed of by the petitioner. It is stated that in one personal loan out of 39 instalments, petitioner has so far paid 11 instalments. It is also stated that towards cash credit facility availed of, as on 31.3.2006 the amount in default was Rs.5,39,850/-. It is stated that on account of the chronic default the bank classified the account as NPA and notice under Section 13 W.P.(C) No. 6519 OF 2008 - 2 - (2) was issued as early as in May, 2006. It is stated that a total payment of Rs.1 lakh was made by the petitioner after Ext. P4 notice was published by the bank. Highlighting all these, counsel for the bank opposes the prayer now made by the petitioner. 3. It is true that the petitioner has been a defaulter and from the facts as stated by the petitioner himself it is obvious that there were circumstances justifying classification of the accounts into N.P.A. and initiating proceedings under the Act. However, since the petitioner has now made a limited request for an instalment facility to liquidate the debt and save the property from the distress sale, I wish yet another opportunity could be accorded to the petitioner to save his property. 4. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the amount that is due towards the loan amount as mentioned earlier before 31.3.2008, the bank will defer further action pursuant to Ext. P4 possession notice. If the petitioner makes remittance as above, the petitioner will be permitted to repay the balance outstanding in six equal monthly instalments the 1st instalment of which will be payable in the last W.P.(C) No. 6519 OF 2008 - 3 - week of April, 2008 and the subsequent instalments in the last week of every succeeding month. It is clarified that in case the petitioner commits any default in paying any one of the instalments, the bank will be free to continue the action that they have already initiated without further notice to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-