IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7322 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.YOUR TRADING DOOR NO.32/1268, KALAVATH ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MOHAMMED IQBAL, S/O.MOHAMMED K.K.,KADAPALLIMOOLAYIL HOUSE, S.KALAMASSERY,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,KASTURBA ROAD,BANGALORE-550 001. 2. THE MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R SRI.LEO GEORGE FOR R SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR R SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 7322 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.5 00,000/- from the respondent bank in the year 2007. But, because of the default, there was no other alternative for the bank than to proceed with further steps invoking the remedy under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that default was never wilful, but because of sudden down fall in the business and that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the liability on reasonable instalments. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner does not intend to challenge any of the steps availing the statutory remedy by approaching the DRT. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that as WPC NO. 7322/2010 -2- on date a sum of about Rs. 4.51 Lakhs is due towards the liability under the loan transaction. It is also submitted that unless and until the petitioner deposits a substantial portion of the liability, the prayer for instalment is not liable to be entertained. 3. After hearing both sides, this Court finds that this Court finds that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the liability by way some instalments. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. One Lakh within three weeks from today and the balance amount shall be deposited by way of 'three' equal monthly instalments, first of which shall be effected on or before 10th May 2010 to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, all further recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. 4. It is also made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in complying with the above directions, the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the due amount from the petitioner by invoking the remedy available under the Act pursuing such exercise from WPC NO. 7322/2010 -3- the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dpk