IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35018 of 2010(B)
1. RAVEENDRAN S., PRASADAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER,
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :12/01/2011
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35018 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
———————-
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 notice
issued with respect to the steps taken under Section 13(4) of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI
Act). Consequent to default committed in repaying loans
availed by the petitioner from the respondents, the
immovable property, which is the secured asset, was
proceeded against. It is the case of the petitioner that on
publishing Ext.P5 notice the petitioner had offered payment
of a sum of Rs.7 lakhs which was refused to be accepted. It
is further stated that subsequently he had effected payment
of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs on 20.11.2010. But without
considering such payment, coercive steps under the
SARFAESI Act was proceeded against and the Bank had
demanded payment of the entire arrears in a lump sum.
Hence the petitioner is seeking interference of this court.
2. It is noticed that on an earlier occasion the
petitioner had approached this court in WP(C). 29329/10 and
W.P.(C).35018/10 -2-
in Ext.P4 judgment the petitioner was given liberty to approach
the respondent Bank offering ‘One Time Settlement’ and further
directing the Bank to keep in abeyance recovery steps till a
decision is taken on the basis of such offer. According to learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, the petitioner had
failed to comply with the condition in making any concrete offer
for ‘One Time Settlement’.
3. Eventhough this court was not inclined to entertain this
writ petition, on the basis of a firm offer made by the petitioner to
pay off the amounts due within a short period, an interim order
was issued against dispossession of the petitioner from the
property, directing the Bank to appropriate the remittance of
Rs.10 lakhs already made. Subsequently it is stated that the
petitioner had remitted a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 8.12.2010.
Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the
balance outstanding after crediting all such payments will be
nearly Rs.12 lakhs. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
on the other hand submits that the petitioner is ready and willing
to make payment of the amount outstanding within a short period
on the basis of a further undertaking that all challenges raised
against the SARFAESI proceedings are relinquished and that the
petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ
W.P.(C).35018/10 -3-
petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in
abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the
property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the
entire balance outstanding along with interest if any accruing in 4
(four) equal monthly installments, falling due on or before
15.2.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months.
5. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to
approach the respondents seeking issuance of a copy of the
statement of accounts with respect to transactions in the account,
and if any such request is made the Bank may issue such copies
on usual terms. It will be open for the petitioner to bring to the
notice of the respondent Bank that the material irregularity or
mistake if any in the accounts, which, if found genuine, will be
corrected by the respondent Bank.
6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment
of any one of the installments the respondents will be at liberty to
proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will
be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such
proceedings.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb