IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32096 of 2009(F)
1. M.RAYIN, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
... Respondent
2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :03/12/2009
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P. (C) No. 32096 OF 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against coercive
steps initiated by the first respondent Bank under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
2002(SARFAESI Act). The loan in question was availed during
the year 2003, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. Consequent to
default committed in repayment the Bank had initiated
proceedings under SARFAESI Act. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate was approached invoking Section 14 and the
petitioner was threatened with eviction from the property.
Eventhough it is contended that the property in question is
agricultural land and it is not liable to be proceeded against
under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, the petitioner is
limiting his prayer to the extent of directing the first
respondent Bank to consider settlement of the arrears under
the provisions of Ext.P5 circular, which is issued by the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies. According to the
WPC.32096 of 2009 : 2 :
petitioner Ext.P5 is applicable with respect to all Banks under
the Co-operative sector, within the State. It is contended that
if settlement is permitted under the provisions of Ext.P5
circular, the petitioner will be entitled for considerable
reduction.
2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the first
respondent had submitted that, the petitioner had not
approached the Bank on any request for considering
settlement invoking benefits under Ext.P5, within the periods
stipulated therein. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
petitioner points out that it was the duty of the Bank to
intimate the defaulters regarding settlement contemplated
under Ext.P5 and to make arrangements for granting reliefs
thereon.
3. However, considering the entire facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be
disposed of directing the respondents to consider settlement of
the loan account under the provisions of Ext.P5 circular and
also directing the petitioner to make payment of the amount so
settled in terms of the circular without any default.
4. In the result, the first respondent is directed to
consider settlement of the petitioner’s loan account under
Ext.P5 scheme(Circular No.1/2009 of the Registrar of Co-
WPC.32096 of 2009 : 3 :
operative Societies, dt.8.1.2009) and to inform the petitioner
about the decision thereof, at the earliest, at any rate within a
period of two weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The petitioner is directed to pay the entire liability
under such settlement, as per the terms to be intimated by the
Bank, without any default.
5. In order to facilitate the first respondent Bank to
consider ‘One Time Settlement’ and to inform the decision to
the petitioner, coercive steps now initiated under the
SARFAESI Act is directed to be kept in abeyance, till the
respondent Bank takes a decision as directed above and
inform the petitioner about the same.
6. It is made clear that if the petitioner commits any
default in complying with the terms of the settlement, the first
respondent will be free to proceed with further steps under
the SARFAESI Act and on such event the petitioner will be
precluded from raising any subsequent challenge.
( C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE)
jma