IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9191 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CEE PEE C EXPORTS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, ZAINU ALI HASSAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE THENU, C.P.S.MANZIL, KODAKKAD, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER, SRI.M.A.FIROSH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANNARKKAD BRANCH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, 3-H AVENUE, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD – 678 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9191 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner had availed a cash credit facility from the respondent Bank for the purpose of business activities in export of marine foods. Facility to the extent of Rs.35 lakhs was sanctioned during the year 2010. But according to the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.14,22,500/- alone was availed, and even the said amount was paid only to a third party, who furnished quotation for supply of marine foods. Acceding to the petitioner the party who had received the amount had failed to effect the supply, nor had returned the amount. Thus the petitioner was cheated by the party who received the money from the Bank. Therefore repayment in the account was defaulted and as a consequence the respondent had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). W.P.(C).9191/11 -2- 2. It is submitted that, steps as contemplated under Section 13(4) was already taken against the immovable property which is the secured asset. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were proceeded without considering the above aspects and without acceding to request made by the petitioner for permitting payment of the amounts due in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank submitted that there is a total outstanding balance of more than Rs.16 lakhs due under the loan account, and the petitioner had not remitted any amount till date. 4. Considering availability of effective remedy under the statute, it is not justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for petitioner made a request for permitting payment of the entire amounts in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that the limited relief sought for can be considered, in view of relinquishment made by the petitioner. W.P.(C).9191/11 -3- 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amounts along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly 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, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb