IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15530 of 2010(M) -------------------------- OA.333/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- JUSTIN.S.K, S/O. CHRISTUDAS, HOUSE NO. 165, SK COTTAGE, KAVALAKULAM, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SRI.A.S.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, VIJAYA BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE VIJAYA BANK, VELLAYAMBALAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA AND LAKSHADEEP), COCHIN -36. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1&2 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 & 2 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15530 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps for recovery of the amount stated as due from the petitioner under a loan transaction, pursuant to Ext.P1 order passed by the DRT, Ernakulam in OA 333/2008 and the consequential demand notice as borne by Ext.P2. 2. The sequence of events shows that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. But the repayment could not be effected on time, as scheduled, under which circumstance, the account was declared as 'NPA' and the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act culminating in the sale of the property concerned securing a sum of Rs.3.77 lakhs. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the property has been caused to be sold in an irregular manner for throw-away price, whereby the actual value of the property could not be secured and as a result, the petitioner is compelled to pay a balance amount under the loan transaction. It was accordingly, that the Bank approached the DRT by filing OA 333/2008, which led to Ext.P1, which was an ex-parte order. It is also stated by the petitioner that the proceedings have also led to some 2 WP(C) No. 15530/2010 'Crime' registered against the then Manager and the approved valuer of the Bank by the CBI and the matter is still pending. 4. The learned standing counsel for the Bank, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed, submits that the property in question was got 'over valued' by the petitioner at the time of procuring the loan, which led to the registration of Crime against the approved valuer as well as the concerned Manager of the Bank at the hands of the CBI. It is also stated that the Manager of the Bank was subsequently terminated from the service and the valuer was removed from the list of approved valuers. The learned counsel further submits that the sale was conducted in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same by approaching the DRT on time, if at all the petitioner was aggrieved in any manner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner has not challenged the sale nor has he challenged Ext.P1 and that the main prayer before this Court is only to get sufficient time to approach the DRT to have the ex-parte order set aside. However, the learned counsel now submits before this Court that the petitioner does not intend to pursue any of the reliefs and that the petitioner would like to clear the liability by way of reasonable instalments. 6. Taking note of the extent of liability remaining to be satisfied by 3 WP(C) No. 15530/2010 the petitioner, which is stated as nearly 13.4 lakhs, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to satisfy the entire outstanding liability by way of 'six' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc