IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34934 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. G.SREERANGAN, BIBIN TRADERS, N.H. 47, ROAD, ALANKODE P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 102. 2. SARALA .A, W/O. G. SREERANGAN, KEERTHI NIVAS, N.H .47 ROAD, ALAMCODE P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 102. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, ADV. SRI.DIPU.R, ADV. SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW, ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIDAS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, 239, BIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021. 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, P.B. NO. 307, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, SHAMS COMPLEX, OPP. KSRTC, BUS STAND, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.34934 of 2008-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The second petitioner availed a loan for a small hotel. Her husband, the first petitioner availed a loan for a retail business in cement dealership. These two units are housed in one building belonging to the first petitioner. It is stated that they are residing in a portion of that building. The total accruals in these two loans grew and resultantly, the bank initiated action under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act on the account becoming NPA in terms of the RBI Guidelines. There is, therefore, no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. Section 13(4) action has also become final and all that the petitioners attempt is to find out ways and means of liquidating the entire outstandings. They have WP(C)34934/08 -: 2 :- different suggestions which are matters of commercial wisdom of the petitioners and the bank. This includes a request to re-schedule the loan or to issue a fresh loan taking over the present loan and to give a spread out repayment schedule. The petitioners state that the security interest is a very valuable item and therefore, the bank could do even that. I am afraid that no direction could be issued in that line since it is not a matter for judicial determination, but one essentially with the commercial wisdom of the bank. In this context, it is worthwhile to note that in spite of possession notice and action already taken, the bank has offered to abide by any direction that this Court would issue granting the petitioners a facility to repay instalments provided an initial amount of Rs.1 lakh is paid. Taking into consideration the submissions in this regard also, this writ petition is ordered directing that while repelling all other contentions, the impugned distress action will stand deferred and WP(C)34934/08 -: 3 :- ultimately dropped, if an amount of Rs.1 lakh is paid to the bank within one month from today and if the entire remaining amounts are paid off in eight equal monthly instalments payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from January, 2009. If there is default in paying any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefits of this judgment will stand recalled and the writ petition will stand dismissed automatically enabling the bank to forthwith proceed with further distress action without fresh notice to the petitioners. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/041108