IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3185 of 2011(W) --------------------------------- CMP.4141/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MR.ANURAJ H., AGED 35, K. HEMACHANDRAN, TC 9/453, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695041. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HDFC BANK LTD. HDFC BANK HOUSE, LOWER PAREL (WEST), MUMBAI, HAVING ITS BRANCH AT KENTON TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL, SC., H.D.F.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.3185 of 2011-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a car loan availed from the respondent Bank, steps as contemplated under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the vehicle, which is the secured asset. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to the request made for permitting regularisation of the account. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the loan in question was availed for a sum of Rs.4,11,320/- during the year 2009 and the petitioner had defaulted repayments. It is conceded that the repayment period as per terms of the loan agreement is for 60 months. It is further stated that the amount in default itself will come to Rs.2,36,550/-. W.P(C) No.3185 of 2011-W 2 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner had not chosen to avail the effective alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) when steps were initiated under Section 13(4), I am of the opinion that it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interfere with the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner undertook that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. On the other hand, limited prayer is made to permit regularisation of the account. 4. Considering the fact that the repayment period is for 5 years from 2009 and also considering the relinquishments made, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, the petitioner can be permitted to regularise the account, within a short period. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further steps for taking over possession and sale of the vehicle in question, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amount in arrears (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or W.P(C) No.3185 of 2011-W 3 before 28.2.2011 and on before 31.3.2011 along with payment of regular instalments due for the respective months. 6. If payments of the amount in default is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab