IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9105 of 2011(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NAFEESAKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.UMMER, PARUVANATH HOUSE, ANDATHODE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VADAKKEKAD BRANCH OFIFCE, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. PIN- 680 001 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001 R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.9105 OF 20 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of personal loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent bank coercive steps were initiated against the immovable property which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is the notice issued intimating steps taken under Section 13(4). According to the petitioner payment were defaulted due to unforeseen financial stringencies and that coercive steps are now being taken without acceding to the request made for permitting regularisation on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amount overdue. 2.Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the loan in question was availed in the year2008 , to the tune of Rs,4,00,000/-and the petitioner is in chronic defaulter on payment of W.P.(C)No.9105 OF 20 11 2 monthly instalments. It is submitted that during the year 2010 petitioner had failed to make payment of consecutive instalments. The total outstanding is more than Rs.3.31 lakhs is the submission. Even the amount overdue for payment itself is more than Rs.71,400/- along with future interest. Under such circumstances the respondent bank is not favoring in permitting regularisation. 3.Considering the availability of the statutory remedy this court is not justified in interdicting the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a limited prayer to permit regularisation on the basis of specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinguishing all challenges and that she is not invoking any statutory remedy. Considering the facts that the repayment period of the loan has not expired and the petitioner had relinguished all challenges, I am of the view that she can be permitted to regularise the account even though interference on merits is not proper. This is especially in view of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India W.P.(C)No.9105 OF 20 11 3 to reclassifying the loans which are declared as NPA on payment of the amounts in default. 4.Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amount overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with expenses if any due)in two equal monthly istalments falling due on or before 15-4-2011 or before 15- 5-2011 along with regular instalments due for the respective months. 5.If payment of the defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, respondents will be permitted the petitioner to continue payment of the future instalments in accordance with he original schedule of repayment. 6.It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, respondents,will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of notices already W.P.(C)No.9105 OF 20 11 4 issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other forum. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE)