JUDGMENT

Petitioners availed two loans from the respondent Bank. One is a term loan and the other is a cash credit facility. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners do not dispute the liability. It is submitted that the petitioners are only seeking some accommodation to clear the liability in instalments.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the respondent Bank has no objection in granting instalments provided the entire amount is paid before 31.03.2023. It is submitted that the petitioners are chronic defaulters and no further indulgence can be shown to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners committed default in repayment of the above two loans and the total outstanding amount as on 04.01.2023 is Rs.25,77,422/-(Rupees twenty five lakhs seventy seven thousand four hundred and twenty two only).

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown to the petitioners clear the entire liability in instalments. This Court in Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. v. Nisha [2016(1) KHC 167], held as follows:

“3. The appellant, aggrieved by the said direction, has come up in the writ appeal. Adv.Sri.C.Varghese Kuriakose, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by interfering in a proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others [2010 KHC 4518] has held that the Supreme Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere in matters under the SARFAESI Act and no such interim order be granted staying the SARFAESI Act. He placed reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in Devi Ispat Ltd. and another v. State Bank of India and Others [2014 KHC 4262] where the same proposition has been laid down. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [2003 KHC 1206]. He referred to another judgment in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India [2004 KHC 584].

4. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

5. It is clear from the judgment of the learned Single Judge as noted above that the learned Single Judge has considered the sole prayer of the petitioner to permit her to remit the balance amount outstanding to the bank in easy instalments. The petitioner thus accepted the liability as disclosed by the bank in the impugned notice. The only indulgence granted by the learned Single Judge was that the amount of Rs.10,55,662/- which was outstanding along with the accrued interest was permitted to be paid in ten equal and successive monthly instalments commencing from 30/11/2015. The said payment was in addition to the regular instalments. Under the second direction, it was directed that in the event the petitioner commits default in respect of any of the instalments, she will loose the benefit of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the bank was free to continue the recovery proceedings against her from the stage at which it stands at the relevant date. The judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant was a case where, challenging the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, a writ petition was filed and this Court had stayed the SARFAESI proceedings. The Apex Court noted the submissions of the parties and the order passed by the High Court by which the High Court had restrained the bank from taking proceedings under the SARFAESI Act with regard to the property of the petitioner. In paragrap