IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24826 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ELIZEBETH MEENAS, D/O. SOLOMON MEENAS, VICTORIA GARDENS, VII/179, KOTHAPARAMBU, P.O. KODUNALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAMSECCC, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, SBI BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.24826 of 2010-C -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P4 notice is issued under Section 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 intimating the steps taken as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has not resorted to the statutory remedy available, at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore in view of the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110) this W.P(C) No.24826 of 2010-C 2 Court is not justified in interfering with the proceedings. 3. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the matter came up for consideration on 6.8.2010, this Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to possession, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within two weeks thereof. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.11769/2010 seeking to modify the interim order contending that the petitioner is not in a position to make payment of any amount as stipulated and also contending that the petitioner was effecting regular payments to the possible extent, taking all earnest efforts. However, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid pursuant to the interim direction issued on 6.8.2010. 4. On 21.10.2010 when the matter was taken up for consideration, this Court had shown further indulgence in permitting the petitioner to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in a phased manner as W.P(C) No.24826 of 2010-C 3 Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 15.11.2010, Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 15.12.2010 and the remaining amount on or before 31.12.2010. 5. It is submitted that the interim order has not been complied with, inspite of extension granted as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner met with cerebral shock and she is hospitalized. It is stated that the petitioner is taking all earnest efforts with the respondent Bank for settlement of the amount within a short period. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that this writ petition could not be entertained any further. However, I make it clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue statutory remedies, if any available under law, and also at liberty to pursue steps for settling payment of the amount due with the respondent Bank. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without W.P(C) No.24826 of 2010-C 4 prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy against the impugned proceedings and also reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank for negotiating settlement with respect to the arrears. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab