IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23493 of 2010(J)
1. K.SHAJI, AGED 49, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. REGIONAL OFFICE,
3. AUTHORISED OFFICER,
4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.C.SUDHEER
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :31/08/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 23493 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Challenge is against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act for
realisation of arrears in a Bank loan availed by the petitioner. Consequent to
default committed, the Bank proceeded against secured assets on issuing
notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, as per Ext.P1. Subsequently Ext.P2
notice was issued taking over possession of secured assets. Even though
petitioner submitted that he had filed objection as evident from Ext.P3, receipt
of any such document was denied through counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the first respondent. It is further submitted by the petitioner that after receipt
of Ext.P1 notice, he had remitted an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 23.04.2010.
According to the first respondent, even after giving credit to the entire
amounts paid by the petitioner, the outstanding liability is more than
Rs.4,00,000/-, along with interest due on the principal amount from
01.03.2008 onwards.
2. Challenge raised against the proceedings under the SARFAESI
Act could not be entertained in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The statute provides effective remedy for the petitioner
to object the demand notice under Section 13 (2) and also to challenge
further actions, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Hence contentions of the
petitioner that Ext.P1 notice does not satisfy the mandatory requirements,
2
WP(C) No. 23493/2010
need not be considered and adjudicated upon by this Court. Under such
circumstance, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition or to take any
decision on the merits of the contentions.
3. However, Sri. K.C. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner made an appeal to this Court for permitting payment of the entire
balance outstanding, within a reasonable time, in instalments. Learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank is opposing such prayer.
Having considered totality of circumstances attendant in this case, I am of the
opinion that some indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay
off the entire liability within a reasonable time.
4. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
respondents 1 to 3 to keep further steps pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 in
abeyance, on condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance
outstanding in ‘four’ (4) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before
30.09.2010 and on or before last date of the 3 (three) succeeding months.
5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of
the instalment the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps. It
is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that
the petitioner is precluded from raising any further challenge against such
proceedings either by approaching this Court or any other Forum.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc