IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26306 of 2010(K)
1. BEERANKUTTY, AGED 50,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
W.P.C.NO.26306 of 2010
Dated this the 15th day of September 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is approaching this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3
order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri in a
proceedings initiated under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the
SARFAESI Act). It is noticed that on an earlier occasion when
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated by the 1st
respondent for realising amounts due under the loan account, the
petitioner had approached this Court. Ext.P1 is the judgment
passed in W.P.C.No.16123 of 2009. By way of indulgence, this
Court permitted the petitioner to clear payment of the entire
outstanding liability, in six equal monthly instalments starting
from 10/09/2009 onwards. It is conceded by the petitioner that
after making payment of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on
10/05/2010 and Rs.1,35,000/- on 11/5/2010, the petitioner
W.P.C.No.26306/10 2
defaulted further payments. Now the immovable property, which
is the secured asset, was ordered to be taken possession by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, by appointing an Advocate
Commissioner. The only relief sought for by the petitioner is for
a direction to keep in abeyance coercive steps and to permit to
pay off the balance amount within a short time.
2. It is noticed that when the petitioner approached this
Court on the earlier occasion, inspite of the fact that interference
was not possible, invoking the equity jurisdiction the petitioner
was permitted to pay off the liability. It is highly improper for
this Court to have a further exercise of indulgence, when it is
evident that the petitioner had failed to comply with the
conditions stipulated. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent Bank submitted that the net balance outstanding will
be around Rs.4.75 lakhs. It is conceded that if the petitioner
makes payment of the said amount immediately, the proceedings
now initiated before the CJM can be withdrawn.
3. As stated above, a further interference in the matter is
not at all desirable. However, considering the submission of the
petitioner that substantial payments had been effected after
W.P.C.No.26306/10 3
Ext.P1 judgment, and also considering undertaking made by the
petitioner for payment of the entire balance within a short period,
I am inclined to grant one more chance to the petitioner to clear
off the entire liability, in order to save the immovable property
from being sold.
4. In the result, the petitioner is granted two month’s
time to pay off the entire balance in two equal monthly
instalments falling due on or before 15/10/2010 and on or before
15/11/2010.
5. It is made clear that on the event of default in
payment of any of the instalments, the respondents will be free
to proceed with further steps pursuant to the order of the CJM
issued under Ext.P5. It is also made clear that the petitioner is
totally prevented from raising any subsequent challenge on the
event of failure to make payment of the amount as per the
stipulations contained herein.
(C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
W.P.C.No.26306/10 4
W.P.C.No.26306/10 5
W.P.C.No.26306/10 6
W.P.C.No.26306/10 7