The court affirmed the borrower's right to request payment in installments despite previous defaults, balancing creditor rights and debtor relief.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026)

The petitioner is a borrower who had availed a cash credit facility from the respondent Bank for a sum of Rs.30 lakhs and a further sum of Rs.50 lakhs by mortgaging 10.25 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.13/4 of Kattiparuthy Village, Tirur Taluk, Malappuram District. The petitioner is “

running a wholesale rice business in the name and style of Padassery ”

Trading Company .

2. Due to default in repayment of the loan, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 , and issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and followed by a possession notice under Section 13(4). Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing S.A. No.126 of 2022, and the DRT by order dated 04.01.2024 dismissed the said S.A. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the DRT by filing S.A. No.530 of 2024, which was also dismissed by order dated 30.01.2025. Subsequently, upon issuance of notice by the Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 20.06.2025. This Court, by interim order dated 23.06.2025, deferred the coercive steps against the petitioner on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.30 lakhs within a period of one month. Against the said interim order, the respondent Bank preferred W.A. No.1567 of 2025, wherein the interim order was set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal for an amount of Rs.90 lakhs in August, 2024. Since there was no response regarding acceptance of the said proposal, the petitioner could not remit the amount. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.24 lakhs (Rs.18 lakhs in August, 2025 and the balance amount in September, 2025).

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank vehemently opposes the prayers sought for in the writ petition and submits that the petitioner had approached the DRT on two occasions and both times the applications were dismissed. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also approached this Court by filing OP (DRT) No.494 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.17125 of 2024. Therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner, as the intention of the petitioner is only to protract and delay the recovery proceedings. It is further pointed out that even the interim order passed by this Court directing payment of Rs.30 lakhs was not complied with. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to the filing of the writ appeal and the interim order being set aside, the sum of Rs.30 lakhs was not remitted.

6. Be that as it may, the total outstanding dues payable to the respondent Bank is Rs.1,18,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to discharge the outstanding liability in installments, provided he is granted six instalments, which is vehemently opposed by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs.24 lakhs during August and September, 2025, and that the total outstanding amount payable is Rs.1,18,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs only), the petitioner is directed to remit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) within one week from today and to pay the balance amount in two instalments, the first instalment on or before 20.02.2026 and the second instalment on or before 20.03.2026. In case of failure to make payment of Rs.25,00,000/- or any of the installments as directed above, the respondent Bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. All coercive proceedings shall be