The petitioner availed an overdraft facility from the 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 SARFAESI 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 to clear the due amount or the rights and liberties of the respondents in proceeding against the petitioner. The limited relief now pressed before this Court is to permit the petitioner to clear the entire liability granting some breathing time in this regard by way of reasonable instalments.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank points out that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C). No. 30038 of 2013 which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 10.12.2013 enabling the petitioner to satisfy the liability in a phased manner by way of ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 1.1.2014. Admittedly there occurred some default O.P.(DRT). No. 75 of 2014 -2-
and the petitioner approached the DRT, Ernakulam by way of S.A. No.
116 of 2014 wherein Ext.P2 interim order came to be passed. The matter is still pending and because of the default on the part of the petitioner, the Bank proceeded with further steps and hence the present litigation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, some more payments were effected by the petitioner after Ext.P1 judgment. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Bank that, the direction given by this Court as per interim order dated 14.7.2014 to deposit a sum of ₹3 lakhs has been complied with, though little belatedly. The learned counsel also submits that some concessions were given to the petitioner permitting him to deposit a sum of ₹31.5 lakhs on or before 10.09.2014 out of which only ₹16 lakhs was paid by the petitioner and the balance is still due.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to clear the entire outstanding liability for which, breathing time is sought for, by two months. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, the bonafides of the petitioner will have to be tested and if it is a genuine one, the petitioner might be given an opportunity to prove the same.
6. In the said circumstance, this Court finds it fit and proper to O.P.(DRT). No. 75 of 2014 -3-
direct the coercive proceedings if any, to be kept in abeyance till 12.1.2015, subject to the condition that, the entire outstanding liability shall be cleared by the petitioner in the meanwhile. It is also made clear that, no petition for extension of time will be entertained under any circumstance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the O.P.(DRT) before the concerned respondent for further steps.
The O.P.(DRT) is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-