IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29843 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SUNITHA VARMA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PALANI, PANNISSERIVELI, NORTH ARYAD.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATHIRAPPALLY BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA. 688005. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATHIRAPPALLY BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.688005. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 29843 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset with respect to the loan transaction. Ext.P3 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, in exercise of the power under section 14(1) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan in question was availed in the year 2008 with a repayment period of 20 years and the coercive steps were now being pursued without considering the request made for permitting regularisation, on the basis of an offer made to pay the defaulted amounts. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain the coercive steps. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy provided under section 17(1) of the Act. As such it is not justified on the part of this court to interdict with the WP(C) .29843/2010 2 proceedings, invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, as a gesture of indulgence, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.30,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner had complied with the condition and also made further payments towards regularisation of the loan account. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedies and that she is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The limited prayer is only to permit regularisation of the account by offering payment of the amount in default within a short time. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation of the account, considering the fact that the petitioner had relinquished all challenges and also considering the fact that repayment period of the loan is for 20 years. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that, after crediting all payments made, the amount in default will come around Rs.15,000/-. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedings for WP(C) .29843/2010 3 dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance amount in default (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses, if any due) on or before 31.1.2011. Petitioner shall also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the month of January, 2011, along with the above said payment. 7. If payment of the defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the regular monthly instalments in future, in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any of the monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of proceedings initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .29843/2010 4