IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34579 of 2010(V)
1. M.ABDUL LATHEEF,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM)
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 34579 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in
repaying a housing loan availed from the respondent
Bank, steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Immovable
property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded
against. The Writ Petition was filed at a stage when
notice under Section 13(2) issued. According to the
petitioner he had remitted considerable amounts and
approached the Bank seeking time for settlement of the
balance, but coercive steps were threatened without
considering such requests. Hence the petitioner is
seeking interference of this Court.
2. However, it is submitted that the respondent
Bank had already approached the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court invoking Section 14(1) and Advocate
2
WP(C) No. 34579/2010
Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the
property. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Bank that the loan account is in chronic
default and the arrears outstanding is around Rs.5.14 lakhs.
3. Considering the effective alternate remedy
available under the statute, I am of the opinion that it is not
proper and justified on the part of this Court to interfere
with the proceedings since the petitioner has not chosen to
avail any of such remedies. However, as a gesture of
indulgence, this Court had stayed dispossession of the
petitioner from the property subject to condition of the
petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1 lakh. It is reported that
the stipulation has already been complied with.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the
balance outstanding in a phased manner, on the basis of an
undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all
challenges against proceedings and that he is not intending
3
WP(C) No. 34579/2010
to pursue any of the statutory remedies. Eventhough
interference on merits is not desirable, I am of the view that
considering the facts and circumstances the petitioner can
be permitted to pay off the balance outstanding in
instalments within a reasonable time.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further
steps of recovery, provided the petitioner remits the entire
balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any
due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or
before 15.01.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the
succeeding months.
6. It is made clear that on the event of default in
payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above,
the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps
on the basis of the proceedings pending before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court. It is also made clear that the
relief granted above is subject to the condition that the
4
WP(C) No. 34579/2010
petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent
challenge against the proceedings.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc