IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 383 of 2011(W) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- U.MOHANAN, S/O. UNNIAPPA MOOTHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MIDHUN BHAVAN, PALLIPURAM.P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECCC, PALAKKAD, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGPALAN NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.383 of 2011-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment amounts due under a cash credit facility, a term loan and a working capital loan, availed from the respondent Bank, coercive steps under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against under Section 13(4) of the Act. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 intimating that if the liability is not cleared within a period of 30 days the property will be put to sale. According to the petitioner, the property which is now proceeded against is worth more than `18 lakhs, whereas the entire balance outstanding is only around `13 lakhs. It is further stated that the coercive steps are now proceeded without considering the request of the petitioner to permit regularisation of the accounts. 2. Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank on the W.P(C) No.383 of 2011-W 2 basis of instructions submitted that the total outstanding amount is more than `13.89 lakhs and the default itself will come to around `12.54 lakhs. Since major portion is the cash credit facility and the term loan availed for business purposes, the request of the petitioner for regularisation could not be considered, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner had not remitted any amounts after availing the loan. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not availed the effective alternative remedy provided under the statute, it is not proper and justified for this Court to interfere in the matter. However, learned counsel made a submission that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedy and that he is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings. On the other hand, limited prayer made is only to permit payment of the total liability in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 4. Considering the above request, I am of the opinion that, eventhough interference on merits is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability in a phased manner. W.P(C) No.383 of 2011-W 3 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of restraining the respondent from proceeding with any further steps for sale or dispossession of the property, provided the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within one month from today. If payment of such amount is made the respondent shall permit the petitioner to pay off the entire balance along with interest and expenses if any accruing, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab