IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34150 of 2010(P)
1. T.MOHAMMED ASLAM, AGED 61 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (UNDER THE
4. ANJILATH ABOOBACKER, S/O. LATE
For Petitioner :SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :29/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 34150 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this Writ Petition is against
proceedings initiated under the Securitistation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent
to failure in repayment of amounts availed by the
petitioner from the respondent Bank under a cash credit
facility, proceedings was initiated against the immovable
property, which is the secured asset. The 3rd respondent
had now issued Ext.P4 notice as contemplated under Rule
8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules, 2002)
intimating steps contemplated under Section 13 (4).
2. It is noticed that the petitioner had not invoked
any of the statutory remedies available at any stage of the
proceedings. Hence considering the dictum laid by the
Hon’ble apex court in United Bank of India Vs.
Satyavati Tondon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110] it is
2
WP(C) No. 34150/2010
not proper and justified for this Court to interfere with the
proceedings invoking powers under Article 226.
3. Having confronted with the above position, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and that
he is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. On
the other hand, prayer is only to permit the petitioner to pay off
the entire liability in a phased manner within a reasonable
time.
4. Heard, learned standing counsel appearing for
respondent Bank. It is submitted that there is an outstanding
balance of around Rs.17.28 lakhs plus interest and incidental
charges. It is further submitted that the cash credit facility
remains overdrawn for a considerable period and the petitioner
was not taking any effective steps to wipe off the liability.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits
is not proper, indulgence can be shown in permitting the
3
WP(C) No. 34150/2010
petitioner to pay off the liability within a reasonable time in
instalments.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing
the respondents 1 to 3 to keep in abeyance all further coercive
steps pursuant to the notices already issued, provided the
petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding along with
interest and expenses if any accruing, in 8 (eight) equal
monthly instalments, falling due on or before 20.12.2010 and
on or before the 20th day of the succeeding months.
7. 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 pursuant
to notices already issued. It is also made clear that the relief
granted above is subject to condition that the petitioner is
precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such
proceedings.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc