The petitioner is a guarantor to the loan availed by one Mr.
G. Padmakumar, in respect of which transaction, another person by name Geethamani also offered property as security. Since the borrower failed to satisfy the requirement in discharging the liability by instalments, the Bank proceeded with steps under SARFAESI Act. It is stated that, the petitioner's property is being taken over, pursuant to Ext.P1 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in a petition filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Ext.P2 notice has been issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in this regard, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. It is stated that, the petitioner is lying paralysed and that the petitioner is ready to clear the liability by way of some instalments.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that, the loan amount of Rupees Five lakhs was availed by the borrower in the year 2009 and the account was declared as 'N.P.A.' on 26.06.2010. On taking steps under the SARFAESI Act, the borrower approached the DRT, Ernakulam by filing S.A. No.703 of 2012. Since the condition imposed by the DRT was not complied with, the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act further, by filing a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Then the borrower approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.30563 of 2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn, pursuant to which, the physical possession of the property was taken over by the Bank. While so, the petitioner's wife, who is another guarantor, approached the Bank by filing a proposal for compromise, referring to the plight of the petitioner and considering the humanitarian grounds, the possession was restored, permitting the petitioner and his wife to reside in the building. But they simply backed out from the compromise and it was in the said circumstances, that necessary proceedings were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, leading to Exts.P1&P2, submits the learned counsel.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner does not intend to dispute the liability, however adding that no steps are being taken by the Bank against the property belonging to the other guarantor by name Geethamani. This Court does not propose to go into such aspects, in view of submission made by the the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to liquidate the liability.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, the total liability as on 15.02.2014 is nearly Rs.7,37,786/- (Rupees Seven lakhs thirty seven thousand seven hundred and eighty six only).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the total outstanding liability was nearly Rs.7,10,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs ten thousand only) as on 15.02.2014, out of which a sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs was satisfied on 16.01.2014 and the balance of Rs.2.26 lakhs alone was to be paid on or before 15.02.2014. The default occurred was only because of some unforeseen circumstances, especially in connection with the treatment of the petitioner and such other adverse circumstances.
After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed to satisfy the entire liability, by way of 'eight' equal monthly instalments, the first of it shall be effected on or before the 30th of November, 2014, followed by similar installments, 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. It is made clear that, if any single default is committed with regard to the satisfaction of the liability as above, 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.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp