IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5452 of 2011(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RASIA RAHIM, AGED 46, W/O. IYDROSE RAHIM, THUNDIL HOUSE, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR, SRI.N.AJITH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE (KERALA) S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECC & CCC, KOLLAM-691 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.R.S. KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5452 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner in the year 2008, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Invoking S.14(1) the respondents have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. Ext.P3 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the loan in question was availed with a repayment period of 15 years and the coercive steps are now being proceeded without considering Ext.P4 request. 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is stated that the loan account is in chronic default and the petitioner had failed to remit monthly instalments consecutively. It is further stated that the total amount W.P.(C).5452/11 -2- outstanding is more than Rs.21 lakhs and even the amount overdue for payment itself is around Rs.3.54 lakhs. Considering the continued default in payment of instalments, the respondents are not favouring in permitting regularisation. 4. Considering remedy provided under the statute, it may not be justified for this court to interfere in the matter. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised and that she is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy. 5. Eventhuogh the respondents are not favouring in permitting regularisation, I am of the view that, in view of the relinquishment of challenges and in view of the fact that the repayment period is 15 years, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation. This is especially because of the fact that, going by terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which is having statutory force, reclassification of the debt as 'performing asset' is mandated, once the arrears is cleared. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 for dispossession and sale of the W.P.(C).5452/11 -3- property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.4.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months, along with payment of regular EMIs due for the respective months. 7. If payments of the defaulted amounts are regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated or any one of the future monthly 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