IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10380 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ASOKAN, AGED 42, S/O.SASTHAVU, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, VELOOKKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SHEEBA, AGED 37, W/O.ASOKAN, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, VELOOKKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.N.MANOJ, SRIA.G.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SAHAKARANA SADBHAVANA MANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., THRISSUR-680 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 2. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHALAKUDY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 307. R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10380 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioners, who are husband and wife, had availed a loan from the respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, during the year 2008, for starting some business. According to the petitioners, prompt repayments of the monthly instalments could not be continued because of the unexpected illness of the sister of the first petitioner and her continued treatment. Consequent to the default, the respondents initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the property was put to public auction by virtue of Ext.P3 notice published. 2. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to their request to pay off the liability in instalments. It is further stated that coercive steps are now pursued without permitting the petitioners to regularise the account on the basis of an offer made for repayment of the amounts in default, within a short time. 3. It is evident from Ext.P3 that a total amount of Rs.1,79,468/- was due as on 28.2.2011. However, it is noticed W.P.(C).10380/11 -2- that the upset price fixed with respect to the property is a sum of Rs.11,66,500/-. It is further submitted that the property in question is the residential house wherein the petitioners are residing. Under such circumstances the petitioners seek interference of this court to permit regularisation of the account, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioners are relinquishing challenges against the proceedings and also rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 4. Heard, counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that as on today the outstanding liability is more than Rs.1.87 lakhs. Since the account in question was remaining in chronic default, the Bank is not favouring regularisation of the account. 5. Considering availability of alternative remedy it is not justified on the part of this court to interfere with the proceedings. However, since the petitioners had relinquished all challenges and also considering the fact that the repayment period of the loan is 100 months, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the W.P.(C).10380/11 -3- petitioners remitting the amount remaining overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months, along with payment of regular EMIs due for the respective months. 7. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioners to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb