IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16712 of 2011(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- FAIZAL HAMEED, 'SHYMOL', JRA/450-J, TC.18/1991, THRIKKANNAPURAM ROAD, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 543. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, (SARB), LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SREEKARIYAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 017. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.R.S. KALKURA, SC, SBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 16712 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU NEWSPAPER DAILY DATED 15/03/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE PERSONALLY SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 17/05/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 16712 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT A housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank was defaulted repayment. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the immovable property, which is secured asset, was proclaimed for sale through Ext.P3 notice. Contention of the petitioner is that the loan in question was availed in the year 2007 with repayment period extending to 15 years and the coercive steps are proceeded without acceding to the request made by the petitioner for permitting regularisation, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts in default within a short period. 2. Heard; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is stated that the loan in question was availed to the tune of Rs.15,26,000 during the year 2007 and the petitioner had failed in remitting the consecutive instalments. It is further submitted that there is a total outstanding of Rs.16.20 lakhs. Even the WP(C) 16712/2011 2 amount remaining overdue for payment itself is more that Rs.4 lakhs is the submission. 3. Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under section 17(1), it may not be proper for this court to interdict with the proceedings . However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an appeal to this court for permitting regularisation, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay all the amounts in default and that he is relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 4. Considering the fact of relinquishments made and also considering the fact that the repayment period is for 15 years, I am inclined to show indulgence in permitting regularisation. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance finalisation and confirmation of sale if any takes place on the basis of Ext.P3, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amount remaining overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses, if any due) in 4 WP(C) 16712/2011 3 (four) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.7.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months, along with payment of monthly instalments due for the respective months. 6. If payment of the defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the regular monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above or any future monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with finalisation of sale if any conducted or to proceed with further steps for conduct of fresh sale, and on such event the petitioner 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 pmn/ WP(C) 16712/2011 4