IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11559 of 2011(T) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. M/S.TOUCH WELL RUBBERS,PULICHUVATTIL, SOUTH ARYAD,AVALOOKUNNU.P.O,ALAPPUZHA-688006, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR P.D.LAL. 2. GEETHA.V.P,PULICHUVATTIL,SOUTH ARYAD, AVALOOKUNNU.P.O,ALAPPUZHA-688006. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. BRANCH MANAGER,UNION BANK OF INDIA, MULLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA-688010. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA,MULLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA-688010. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC., UBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11559 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Coercive steps initiated for dispossession, pursuant to proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at the behest of respondents, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. A 'cash credit hypothecation facility' availed by the petitioners from the respondent Bank was defaulted repayment. Now, the immovable property, which is a secured asset, is proceeded against. The petitioners raise a contention that, the steps under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated, without complying with the mandatory procedure contemplated under Sections 13(2) and 13(4). Hence, the petitioners seek interference of this Court to interdict with the proceedings. 2. Considering the effective remedy available under the statute, it is not justified on the part of this Court to 2 W.P.(C).No.11559 of 2011 interdict with the proceedings in any manner. This is especially in view of the dictum laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in United Bank of India V. Sathyawati Tondon & Ors. (2010(8) SCC 110). Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that, the period of the cash credit hypothecation facility, which was availed in the year 2006, stands expired and there is a total outstanding of a sum of Rs.11.85 lakhs. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the entire amount in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. It is also undertaken that, the petitioners are not intending to invoke any statutory remedy. 4. Considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not warranted, the petitioners can be permitted to wipe off the 3 W.P.(C).No.11559 of 2011 entire liability in instalments within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/