IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28710 of 2010(K)
1. MANUEL JOSEPH ANTONY, PUTHENVEETTIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
For Respondent :SRI.A.ANTONY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28710 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Petitioner had availed a housing loan from the
respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.18,50,000/-, during the
year 2008. Repayment period of the loan was for 15 years,
which will end only in the year 2023. Consequent to default
committed in repayment of regular monthly installments, the
respondent initiated steps under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P3 is the
notice issued taking steps contemplated under Section 13(4).
According to the petitioner, he submitted Ext.P4 application
before the respondent seeking permission for regularising
the account, but the same was not considered.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on
the basis of instructions, submitted that no representation as
Ext.P1 was received by the respondent.
3. Considering the statutory scheme the petitioner
W.P.(C).28710/10-K -2-
has got effective alternate remedies, if he is aggrieved by the
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Challenge raised against
SARFAESI proceedings in a writ petition could not be
entertained under such circumstances. However, as a gesture of
indulgence this court issued an interim order on 17.9.2010
restraining dispossession of the petitioner from the property, on
condition of payment of a sum of Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted that
the petitioner had already complied with the condition. Learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that even after crediting
the said payment, an amount of Rs.1.35 lakhs is still due from
the petitioner, towards the overdue installments along with
interest. It is submitted that if the petitioner makes payment of
the said amount immediately, regularisation can be considered.
4. Having regard to facts and circumstances prevalent in
this case and the rival submissions, I am of the view that
eventhough interference on merits is not at all desirable,
indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner for
regularising payments in the account.
5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing
the respondents to keep all further coercive steps pursuant to
Ext.P3 notice in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the
W.P.(C).28710/10-K -3-
entire defaulted amount along with interest and expenses if any
due, in 2 (two) equal monthly installments falling due on or
before 30.10.2010 and on or before 30.11.2010. The petitioner
shall also pay the regular installments due for the months of
October and November 2010 along with the above said
payments.
6. If payments of defaulted amounts are regularised as
directed above, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to
continue payment of future installments in accordance with the
original schedule of repayment.
7. It is made clear that on the event of default in
payment of any of the installments, the respondent will be free to
proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already
issued. It is also made clear that the relief granted as above will
be subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from
raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings,
either before this court or before any other forum.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb