IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26215 of 2009(V)
1. RAJKUMAR, DHANYA STUDIO, MANACAUD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :17/09/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J
----------------------
W.P.(c) No.26215 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had availed a housing loan from the 1st
respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs, during the year
2006. As per the schedule, the loan has to be repayed within a
period of fifteen years in equal monthly instalments of
Rs.12,000/- each. Since the petitioner defaulted payment of the
monthly instalments, the Bank initiated proceedings against the
secured assets under the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvananthapuram had already issued Ext.P3 order under
Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act, appointing an Advocate
Commissioner to take over possession of the secured assets. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order
to show his bona fides, he had already paid an amount of
Rs.71,000/- after the initiation of the impugned proceedings. It
is further submitted that he is ready and willing to pay off the
W.P.(c) No.26215/09 2
defaulted instalments within a reasonable time in order to
regularise the account and shall pay the balance monthly
instalments as per the original schedule, without any further
default.
2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondents,
who on instructions submitted that, the amount outstanding
payment with respect to the defaulted instalments itself is more
than Rs.3,00,000-, and the petitioner is a chronic defaulter. He
opposes granting of instalment facility for settlement of the
overdue arrears.
3. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the
opinion that, even though interference against the proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act may not be proper, in view of the
effective alternative remedy available, this is a fit case where
some indulgence can be shown to permit the petitioner to
regularise payments in the loan account.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing
the petitioner to make payment of the amount outstanding with
respect to the defaulted instalments along with interest if any
due, in three (3) equal monthly instalments starting from
15/10/2009 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding two
W.P.(c) No.26215/09 3
(2) months. He shall also continue payment of the regular
instalments due with respect to those months. If payments as
above are made without any default, the respondent bank shall
permit the petitioner to continue repayment of the balance EMIs
as per the original schedule, without resorting to any further
steps pursuant to the actions now initiated.
5. It is made clear that on defaulted in payment of any
amount as stipulated above, the respondent Bank is free to take
further steps pursuant to the SARFAESI proceedings from the
stage where it will be kept pending, without issuing any further
notice. It is also made clear that the benefit granted under this
judgment is subject to the condition that the petitioner is
precluded from making any further challenge against the
proceedings before this court or before any other forum.
(C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE)
jsr