IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23015 of 2008(M) -------------------------- CMP.4400/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: K.S.SASI, AGED 38, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, KALLUKULANGARAYIL HOUSE, VENIKATA KARA, B.K.PURAM.P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SMT.THANKOM.G SRI.B.S.SURESHKUMAR SRI.MANJULAHITHAN SRI.T.A.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE VIJAYA BANK, CHOTTANIKKARA BRANCH CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM.REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER AND BRANCH MANAGER. 5. MR.ANUP.N.V, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, ADVOCATE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K. ANAND GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 23015 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 30th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the 4th respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the 4th respondent. However, the petitioner now submits that in view of the very pathetic circumstances of the petitioner and his family, a lenient attitude may be taken so as to enable the petitioner to pay off the amounts in instalments. 2. This is opposed by the counsel for the Bank, who would submit that in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner, he has not paid any amounts. He submits that the amount would come to more than Rs. 3,50,000/-. However, considering the pathetic circumstances detailed in the writ petition, I think that a lenient attitude shall be taken by the 4th respondent in the matter. But, at the same time, the interest of the 4th respondent also has to be protected. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has already taken possession of the security interest. The petitioner wants to be put back in possession. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: Immediately on payment of an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the petitioner shall be put back in possession on the petitioner executing an undertaking to the effect that if the further conditions mentioned herein are not complied with by the petitioner, the petitioner shall voluntarily surrender possession to the 4th respondent on demand. The petitioner shall pay a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 1-9-2008. The balance amount shall be paid in four equal monthly instalments starting from the first working day of October, 2008. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of W.P.C. No. 23015/08 -: 2 :- every succeeding month. On the above conditions, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in complying with any of the above conditions, it would be open to the 4th respondent to take back possession without having to take any other measures in that regard and the petitioner shall voluntarily surrender possession on demand. It would be open to the 4th respondent to thereafter complete proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in case of default. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.