The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or calling for the original of Exhibit P2 notice and quashing the same.
(ii) Issue any appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to get the loan account regularised by remitting the arrears of loan instalments within a period of six months and not to take any steps/proceedings including those pursuant to Ext.P2 notice for the recovery of the amount due from the petitioner, pending regularisation of the account.
(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. It is seen from the pleadings and proceedings that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier, when the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, after declaration of the account as ‘N.P.A.’, in view of the default committed by the petitioner. Exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relief was granted passing Ext.P6 judgment, whereby WP(C) No.4348 of 2012 was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to clear the overdue amount by way of instalments and to have the loan account regularised, also incorporating default clause. It is stated that, after passing Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner satisfied a sum of nearly Rupees Sixty thousand. The petitioner had also approached the D.R.T., Ernakulam by filing S.A. No.539 of 2011. Between 11.05.2012 and 27.06.2012, the petitioner effected an amount of nearly Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh ninety thousand only), pursuant to which, the loan account was regularised. The petitioner came to be a defaulter again, when the account was declared as ‘N.P.A.’ on 02.03.2013 and the Bank proceeded with further steps, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that no further discretion does require to be exercised in favour of the petitioner, so as to cause the loan account to be regularised, having given such benefit once. However, considering the persuasive submission made from the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not intend to pursue the matter any further, nor is any dispute with regard to the rights and liberties of the Bank in proceeding with steps, thus confining the relief only to enable the petitioner to discharge the 'entire liability' by way of reasonable instalments, this Court finds it fit and proper to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to save the property. Accordingly, the entire outstanding liability, which is stated as nearly Rs.9,76,849/- (Rupees Nine lakhs seventy six thousand eight hundred and forty nine only) is permitted to be cleared by way of ‘ten’ equal monthly instalments. The initial nine instalments shall be at the rate of Rupees One lakh each, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 31st of December, 2014, followed by similar installments, to be effected on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. The last instalment shall constitute the requisite amount so as to top up the figure and to have the loan account closed. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. It is made clear that, if any single default is committed with regard to the satisfaction of the liability above, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp