IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37072 of 2010(H)
1. RADHAKRISHNAN.K, S/O.MR.KUTTAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER)
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.MAJEED
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.37072 of 2010-H
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed aggrieved by coercive steps
initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by
the petitioner in re-payment of a housing loan availed from
the respondent Bank steps were initiated against the
immovable property which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is
the notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules intimating steps contemplated under
Section 13(4) of the Act. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3
representation offering to clear the present dues and
requesting to permit regularisation of the account.
According to the petitioner, the respondent Bank is
proceeding with coercive steps without considering such
request. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this
Court.
W.P(C) No.37072 of 2010-H 2
2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondent Bank submitted that the loan in question was
availed in the year 2009 to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs and that
the petitioner had defaulted regular payments of monthly
instalments. It is further submitted that the Bank had never
received any representation as that of Ext.P3.
3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has got
effective remedy under the statute, it is not proper and
justified for this Court to interfere with the proceedings.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the re-payment period of the loan is for 15 years and that
the petitioner is not intending to pursue any such statutory
remedies and that he is relinquishing all challenges against
the proceedings initiated. On the other hand, the limited
prayer is only to permit the petitioner to regularise the
account on the basis of an offer that he will pay off the
arrears within a short time.
4. Eventhough interference on merits is not
desirable, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in
W.P(C) No.37072 of 2010-H 3
permitting the petitioner to regularise the account, if he is
relinquishing all challenges.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondent Bank to keep in abeyance further
steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P2 notice provided the
petitioner remits the entire amount in default (defaulted
instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in
2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before
15.1.2011 and on or before 15.2.2011. The petitioner shall
also make payment of regular instalments due for the
months of January and February 2011 along with above said
payments.
6. If payments of defaulted amounts is regularised as
directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner
to continue payment of the future instalments in terms of
the original schedule.
7. It is made clear that on the event of default in
payment of any of the instalments the respondent will be
free to proceed with further steps on the basis of Ext.P2
W.P(C) No.37072 of 2010-H 4
notice. It is further made clear that the above relief is
granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is
precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against
such proceedings.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab