The judgment affirms the balance between a borrower's plea for repayment flexibility and a lender's right to enforce securities under the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed a housing loan to the tune of ₹8,50,000/-

from the first respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. But the repayment could not be effected promptly, when the respondent Bank proceeded against the petitioner by resorting to the remedy under the SARFEASI Act which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the default was never wilful, but due to some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner does not dispute the liability of the petitioner to clear the due amount or the rights and liberties of the respondent Bank in proceeding against the property. The limited relief now pressed before this Court is to permit the petitioner to clear the entire liability, providing some breathing time in this regard. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner does not intend to pursue the matter before the DRT.

3. It is brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the petitioner had admittedly approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.5337 of 2012 which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment directing the petitioner to satisfy the overdue amount in a phased manner and to have the loan account regularised. It is stated that the petitioner did not honor the commitment in toto and in such circumstances there was no alternative for the Bank but to proceed with further steps as come by Ext.P3 which is sought to be challenged. It is also pointed out that, as on date, a total amount of ₹9,61,000/-is due under the loan transaction; simultaneously adding that two other loans are also there, which have become NPA.

After hearing both sides, this Court does not find this case as a fit case to grant further benefit of regularisation. However, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of reasonable instalments. Accordingly, the petitioner is set at liberty to satisfy the same by way of 'ten' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before 30th of April, 2014; followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th day of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed with regard to payment of entire liability as above, it will be open for the respondent Bank to proceed against the petitioner for realisation of the entire amount in a lump, from the stage where it stands now. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

rkc.