IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28418 of 2010(B)
1. ABDUL BASHEER, S/O.ALAVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DY.GENERAL MANAGER
... Respondent
2. NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :11/10/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 28418 of 2010-B
----------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Challenge is against proceedings initiated under the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The
petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion. Ext.P5 is
the judgment passed in W.P(C) No.8069 of 2010. Considering
submission made by both sides, this Court had shown indulgence in
permitting the petitioner to clear the entire overdue amounts in the
loan account, in a phased manner. The petitioner was directed to
deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30th March 2010
and the balance amount to be cleared in two equal monthly
instalments falling due on or before 30th April 2010 and on or
before 30th May 2010.
2. It is admitted by both sides that pursuant to Ext.P5
judgment, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was remitted on 30.3.2010.
But the subsequent two instalments were not paid within the dates
stipulated. However, it is conceded that an amount of Rs.60,000/-
W.P(C) No. 28418 of 2010-B 2
was paid on 19.6.2010. Having failed to regularise the account as
directed in Ext.P5 judgment, the respondent Bank initiated further
steps and Ext.P6 notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Act.
However, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 request explaining the
circumstances under which he could not comply with the
stipulations and further requested to permit payment of the entire
outstanding amount.
3. Since an equitable relief was already been granted by
this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, it is not proper to entertain this writ
petition, which is filed seeking almost the same reliefs. Further it is
noticed that against Ext.P6 notice, the petitioner has got a remedy
to raise objections/representations before the authorised officer. In
fact Ext.P7 was already submitted in this regard. It is obligatory on
the part of the respondent Bank to consider the same and to take a
decision on the basis of the request made.
4. It is noticed that in a statement filed by the first
respondent it is mentioned that as on 29.9.2010 an amount of
Rs.1,02,628/- is outstanding as overdue in the loan account. It is
further stated that a total balance outstanding is Rs.7,24,562/-.
Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that if the
W.P(C) No. 28418 of 2010-B 3
petitioner remits the entire outstanding amounts, within a short
time, and makes appropriate request for permitting payment of
future instalments, the same will be considered favourably.
5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting
the petitioner to make payment of the entire amounts outstanding,
in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before
30.10.2010 and on or before 31.11.2010. The respondent will keep
in abeyance further coercive steps till then and will take a decision
on the request of the petitioner to permit payment of future
monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule.
6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment
of any one of the instalments the respondents will be free to
proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above
relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is totally
precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such
proceedings.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
//True Copy//
ab P.A to Judge
W.P(C) No. 28418 of 2010-B 4