IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34520 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VISWANATHAN NAIR, S/O.SIVARAMA MENON, KUNNEVELIYIL HOUSE, CHERTHALA SOUTH.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SMT.M.SRUTHY SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, EDAPPALLY BRANCH AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNDER SARFASEI ACT, KOCHI-24. ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 34520 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 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, the secured asset has already been taken over possession by the respondent Bank, pursuant to Ext.P1 notice. It is noticed that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion and he was granted time for payment of the balance amount. It is further noticed that the conditions stipulated therein was not complied with, inspite of extension of time granted. 2. According to the petitioner, the balance amount demanded which include legal charges and other expenses is highly unreal and exorbitant. However, it is the specific case of the petitioner that, inspite of Ext.P3 representation submitted seeking settlement of the loan account, the Bank is not considering the same. WP(C)No,34520/2010 2 3. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that, pursuant to approach made by the petitioner, the matter was settled in an Adalath conducted by the respondent Bank. It is further stated that the Bank had agreed to settle the dues on payment of a total sum of Rs.48,000/-, which was permitted to be paid in distinct instalments as mentioned in the letter issued by the respondent Bank, dated 26.11.2010. 4. In view of the settlement arrived, learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking withdrawal of this writ petition, without prejudice to his right to make payment of the amount in terms of the agreement. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to settle payment of the amounts due as per the agreement arrived on 26.11.2010. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc