IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25091 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STOY T.MUTTATH, MUTTATH HOUSE, KARAKKAD, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 506. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, AIG HOME FINANCE INDIA LTD., 2ND FLOOR, JAYASREE COMPLEX, OPP. THIRUVAMBADI TEMPLE, SHORNOOR ROAD, THRISSUR-680020. 2. AIG HOME FINANCE INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS WIEZMANN HOMES LTD.), 2ND FLOOR, JAYASREE COMPLEX, OPP. THIRUVAMBADI TEMPLE, SHORNOOR ROAD, THRISSUR-680020, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 25091 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against 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 housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondents, steps were initiated against the secured assets, the immovable property belonging to the petitioner. A notice regarding the steps under Section 13 (4) was issued as per Ext.P1 to take over possession of the property. According to the petitioner there was default in payment of only few instalments and the repayment period is upto the year 2015. He is expressing willingness to clear the outstanding arrears and to continue payment of regular instalments without any further default. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 WP(C) No. 25091/2010 submitted that the outstanding arrears itself is more than Rs.90,000/- and that the total arrears nearly Rs.3 lakhs. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has got an effective remedy against the proceedings as provided under Section 17 (1) of the Act, and also considering the fact that the petitioner has not raised any effective objections against the demand under Section 13 (2), I am not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case. 3. When the matter came up for admission, this Court had granted an interim order subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is conceded by both sides that the condition imposed has already been complied with. However, considering the totality of circumstances attendant in this case, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to regularize the loan account by paying the overdue amounts within a short period. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice in abeyance, provided the 3 WP(C) No. 25091/2010 petitioner remits the entire amounts outstanding less the amount paid by virtue of the interim order, in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.10.2010 and 31.11.2010. The petitioner shall also remit regular instalments due for these two months along with such payments. If the outstanding arrears is cleared payment as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future instalments as per the original schedule. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalment as stipulated as above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that the relief granted as above will be subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings, either by approaching this Court or any other Forum. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc