IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25501 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.V.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. AVARANKUTTY, AGED 46 YEARS, N.V.HOUSE, CHALIAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED HASSAN SRI.V.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) FEROKE CO-OPERATIVE URBA BANK LTD. NO.D-2640,BUS STAND BUILDING, P.O.FEROKE-673631. 2. THE FEROKE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NO.D-2640, BUS STAND BUILDING, P.O.FEROKE-673631, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.25501 of 2010-K ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging steps initiated by the respondents for sale of the secured assets, pledged by the petitioner for availing loan from the second respondent, for the purpose of conducting an industry. Ext.P2 sale notice was published pursuant to steps initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan. According to the petitioner, the upset price shown in Ext.P2 is shockingly low, when compared with the prevailing market price. The assets in question are the industrial unit and its machineries. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the Bank has now invoked Section 14(1) of the Act, by approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, inspite of payment of substantial amounts. Under such circumstances, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is sought to be quashed. 2. It seems that the petitioner had not availed of any W.P(C) No.25501 of 2010-K 2 opportunity to object the demand raised, under Section 13(2), nor had he availed any opportunity of filing statutory appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter on the merits based on of the contentions stated above. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court in permitting the petitioner to pay off of the entire balance within a reasonable time, in instalments, on conceding that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the balance outstanding, after adjusting of payment so far effected, will be around Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner is offering payment of the entire balance due, along with future interest if any, within a period of five months. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, in five (5) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.9.2010 and on or before the 15th day of the every succeeding months. W.P(C) No.25501 of 2010-K 3 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalments the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above indulgence will be subject to the condition that the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings, either before this Court or before any other forum. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab