IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37075 of 2010(H)
1. MOOSA MANSOOR.M, MANGALASERIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, KOTTAKKAL,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK,
For Petitioner :SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 37075 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Challenge is against coercive steps of recovery
initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent
to default committed in repayment of a housing loan
availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank,
immovable property which is the secured asset, was
proceeded against. On receipt of demand under Section
13(2), the petitioner had approached the Bank seeking
permission to regularise the account. But, according to
the petitioner, the Bank has not acceded to such request.
Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the
housing loan in question was availed in the year 2008 to
the tune of Rs.30 lakhs. However it is conceded that the
2
WP(C) No. 37075/2010
repayment period will expire only in the year 2015. It is
further submitted that the amount in default itself will come
around Rs.7.25 lakhs, as on today. Since the account is in
chronic default the Bank is proposing to proceed with
further coercive steps.
3. Considering the fact that the proceedings is only
at the stage of issuing notice under Section 13(2) and also
considering the fact of availability of effective remedy for
the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not proper for this
Court to interfere at this stage. However, learned counsel
made an appeal to this Court to permit regularisation of the
account on the basis that the defaulted amount will be paid
within a short period in a phased manner. He further
undertakes that the petitioner is not intending to pursue
any of the statutory remedies and that he is relinquishing all
challenges against the proceedings.
4. Considering the limited prayer sought for, I am of
the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the
3
WP(C) No. 37075/2010
petitioner to regularise the account in view of the fact that
the repayment period will expire only in the year 2015.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further
coercive steps of recovery, provided the petitioner remits
the amounts in default (defaulted monthly instalments along
with interest and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal
monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.12.2010
and on or before the last day of the three succeeding
months. The petitioner shall also make payment of the
regular instalments due with respect to the months
concerned, along with the above said payments.
6. If the payment of the amounts in default is
regularised as directed above, the respondent shall permit
the petitioner to make payment of future monthly
instalments in accordance with the original schedule of
repayment.
7. It is further made clear that on the event of
4
WP(C) No. 37075/2010
default in payment of any one of the instalments as
stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed
with further steps on the basis of notices already issued. It
is further made clear that the relief granted above is subject
to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising
any subsequent challenge against such proceedings.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc