The petitioner and his wife availed a business loan from the respondent Bank by way of cash credit facility, creating security interest over the property. In view of the default on the part of the petitioner, the Bank proceeded with further steps, also by filing O.A. No.450 of 2013 before the D.R.T., Ernakulam, which is pending. It is without any regard to the pendency of the same, that another course of realisation is sought to be pursued by way of SARFAESI Act, which made the petitioner to approach this Court with the following prayers:
“(i) To call for the records relating to Exhibits P1 to P and to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, quashing Exhibit-P5 possession notice and all consequential steps taken by the respondents 1 & 2 for dispossession of the petitioners from the residential house during the pendency of Statutory Original Application pending before the DRT, being arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable and premature.
(ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 & 2 to keep all further proceedings in abeyance pursuant to Exhibit P5 possession notice for the forceful dispossession of the petitioner from the residential building till the final disposal of Exhibit P2 statutory Original Application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam.
(iii) To issue an interim direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to keep all further proceedings in abeyance pursuant to Exhibit P5 possession notice for the forceful dispossession of the petitioner from the residential building till the final disposal of Exhibit P2 statutory Original Application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil).
(iv) To issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order to meet out justice in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, the loan was originally availed for a period of one year by way of cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only) on 18.07.2011, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five lakhs only) on 25.07.2012. It is stated that, the business was closed down by the petitioner and there was no repayment, pursuant to which, the account was declared as 'N.P.A.' on 22.01.2013. The total outstanding arrears as on 26.09.2014 is nearly Rs.48,54,794/- (Rupees Forty eight lakhs fifty four thousand seven hundred and ninety four only) + interests and costs.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner does not intend to dispute the liability as above. It was only because of the frustrating pecuniary circumstances and such other adverse market conditions, that the petitioner was not in a position to clear the liability.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to liquidate the liability in a phased manner, so as to save the property. Accordingly, considering the extent of liability that is to be cleared, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by way of 'ten' equal monthly instalments, the first of it shall be effected on or before the 30th day of October, 2014, followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being.
5. It is made clear that, if any default is committed with regard to the satisfaction of the installments, it will be open for the respondent Bank to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, three other loans also were availed by the petitioner in respect of the sister concern and in the course of negotiations, the Bank had agreed to have the loan accounts closed on satisfaction of the liability as per the 'N.P.A.' status, subject to satisfaction of a portion of the same as instructed. The petitioner submits that, he has already remitted a sum of nearly Rs.1.5 Crores. But thereafter, the Bank has taken a different turn. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has approached the higher authorities by submitting Ext.P4 and the prayer is to cause the same also to be considered and disposed of, so as to have some or other benefit to the permissible extent.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, the other loans stated as availed by the sister concern, are in no way connected to the present cause of action. However, since the issue is stated as pending consideration before the higher authority, there will be a direction to the concerned authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, so as to extend any benefit, if the petitioner is eligible, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp