IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33330 of 2010(M)
1. ABOOBACKER.P.A, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,NORTH MALABAR
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,NORTH MALABAR
3. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,REP.BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :23/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 33330 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this Writ Petition is against
proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent
to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of
loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings were
initiated against the immovable property, which is the
secured asset. Ext.P2 is the demand notice issued under
Section 13 (2). Complaint of the petitioner is that,
eventhough the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3
representation subsequent to receipt of demand under
Section 13 (2), the respondent Bank is proceeding with
coercive steps without considering such representation.
It is now brought to my notice that through Ext.P5 letter
the Bank had given a reply to the petitioner. The
requests made by the petitioner was not accepted and the
2
WP(C) No. 33330/2010
petitioner was intimated that if he is not discharging the
liability within a period of 60 days, further steps will be
pursued.
2. Considering the scheme of the statute, the
petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy against
further proceedings if any taken, on the basis of Ext.P5.
Therefore it is not proper for this Court to entertain this
Writ Petition and to grant any order restraining further
proceedings of the Bank, especially in view of the dictum
laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of
India Vs. Satyavati Tondon and others [2020 (8) SCC
110].
3. Having confronted with the above situation,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the
proceedings and that he is not intending to pursue any of
the statutory remedies. On the other hand, the limited
prayer is to permit the petitioner to remit the entire liability
3
WP(C) No. 33330/2010
within a reasonable time, in instalments.
4. Having considered the fact that the petitioner is
relinquishing all challenges I am inclined to grant such
relief.
5. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further
steps pursuant to Exts.P3 and P5 notices, provided the
petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with
interest if any accruing, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments
falling due on or before 30.01.2011 and on or before the last
day of the succeeding months.
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 and on such event the
petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent
challege.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc