High Court Kerala High Court

Antony Sebastian vs Bank Of India on 30 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Antony Sebastian vs Bank Of India on 30 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26869 of 2010(G)


1. ANTONY SEBASTIAN, AGED 77 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SURAJ SEBASTIAN, AGED 39 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY THE MANAGER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :30/08/2010

 O R D E R
                          C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
                   ---------------------------
                      W.P(C) No.26869 of 2010-G
                   ----------------------------
              Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010.

                            J U D G M E N T

1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exts.P1 and P2

notices issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioners, having defaulted

repayment of the loan availed from the respondent, has now been

proceeded against for taking over possession of the secured assets.

According to the petitioners the property, which is the secured asset

has already been agremented for sale, as evident from Ext.P3, and

that they need only some time to pay off the liability.

2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents

disputed genuineness of Ext.P3, contending that the purchaser has

not come forward with any concrete proposal or had undertaken for

payment of the amounts due.

3. It is noticed that the proceedings are only at the stage of

Section 13(2) notice. The petitioners are at liberty to object such

W.P(C) No.26869 of 2010-G 2

notice and further to seek appellate remedy available under the

statute. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the

proceedings in this jurisdiction.

4. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

made a fervent appeal to permit payment of the entire arrears

within a reasonable time in instalments. Eventhough the learned

counsel for the respondent Bank opposed the prayer, having

considered totality of circumstances attendant in this case, I am

inclined to show indulgence in permitting the petitioners to pay off

the entire liability in instalments.

5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

respondents to keep further steps pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2

notices in abeyance, on condition of the petitioners remitting the

entire arrears due, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments falling due

on or before 15.9.2010 and on or before the 15th day of every

succeeding months.

6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment

of any of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will

be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that

the above indulgence will be subject to the condition that the

W.P(C) No.26869 of 2010-G 3

petitioners are precluded from raising any subsequent challenge

against such proceedings either before this Court or before any

other forum.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE

ab