IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14014 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MR.ABDUL SALAM, AGED 56, S/O.SULAIMANKUNJU, VATTOLIL HOUSE, KILIKOLOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691004. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. THE MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION BRANCH, KOLLAM 6910 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.S.P KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14014 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to failure on the part of the petitioner in repaying a cash credit facility availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. By invoking section 14(1) of the Act, the respondents approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the property, which is the secured asset. 2. According to the petitioner, the functioning of the industry was managed by children of the petitioner and one of the sons of the petitioner had a renal failure and had undergone kidney transplantation on two occasions. It is stated that another son had donated one of his kidneys 2 W.P.(C).No.14014 of 2011 for the transplantation. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the family fell into great financial crisis which lead in defaulting regular transaction in the account in question, is the submission. It is contended that the coercive steps were now being pursued without acceding to request made by the petitioner to renew the facility on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts exceeding the limit. 3. Heard ; standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is stated that the cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs was availed as early as in the year 2006 and the facility need renewal on an year to year basis. It is stated that, due to the default committed, the facility was not renewed and it was declared as 'NPA' during the year 2010. According to the respondents, a sum around Rs.13.40 lakhs is the outstanding balance in the account in question. 4. Considering the effective statutory remedy provided under the statute, which the petitioner had failed to invoke, 3 W.P.(C).No.14014 of 2011 this Court may not be justified in interdicting with the proceedings. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner within a reasonable time, in instalments, taking note of the special circumstances prevailing as stated above. Such an appeal is made on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited relief, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not possible, the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in easy instalments within a reasonable time. 6. Accordingly, 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 balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if 4 W.P.(C).No.14014 of 2011 any due, in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the concerned authority among the respondents seeking renewal of the facility after payment of considerable amounts. The respondents will be at liberty to consider such request despite the directions issued as above. 8. It is further made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the steps already initiated and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/