IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27289 of 2010(I) ---------------------------- --------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SREEKUMAR.S,ARAPPURA VEEDU,T.C.25/1816, THAMPANOOR PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AMBIKA SREEKUMAR,ARAPPURA VEEDU, T.C.25/1816,THAMPANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.K.V.JEYANTHI RESPONDENT(S): --------- -------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MAIN BRANCH, STATUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,MAIN BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27289 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioners in repayment of a personal loan as well as a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings against immovable properties, which are secured assets, has been initiated by the respondents. It is contended that the respondent Bank had failed to issue proper statement of accounts inspite of request made by the petitioners. The petitioners are disputing correctness of the amount claimed under Section 13(2) notice. It is also stated that the offer made by the petitioners to regularise the account by payment of defaulted amounts, was not acceded to by the respondent Bank. W.P.(C).27289/10-I -2- 2. Under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, against the notice of demand, the petitioners have got an effective remedy to raise objections. Further, the petitioners have got an effective remedy of appeal, as per Section 17(1) of the Act, against further steps. I find no patent illegality under the proceedings warranting interference, bypassing such statutory remedies available. Hence the writ petition deserves no merit. 3. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought indulgence of this court in permitting regularisation by paying the entire amount in default, within a reasonable time. Counsel for the respondent Bank is not favouring such request. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, eventhough interference on merits is not possible, indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting regularisation of the account. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the petitioners to remit the entire outstanding amount (defaulted installments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly installments, falling due on or before 15.11.2010 and on or before the 15th day of two succeeding months. W.P.(C).27289/10-I -3- 5. The petitioners shall also make payment of the regular installments due with respect to the above said 3 months, along with the above said payments. If payments in the account is regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioners to continue payment of the future installments in accordance with the original schedule. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the installments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioners 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. okb