ANURAG Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners' singular prayer is that the respondent- financial institution be directed to allow them to pay off the entire liability, in a loan facility concededly availed of by them, in twenty equal monthly installments.

(2.) Sri. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil), the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent - financial institution, submits that normally, no leniency can be shown to the petitioners because, even though his client had taken physical possession of the secured asset by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) the petitioners trespassed into the property and is now illegally in its possession. He says that, therefore, any leniency can be shown to the petitioners only if they undertake that, in the event they commit default in payment, the physical possession of the property will be delivered back to the financial institution, without them having to take legal recourse for the said purpose.

(3.) On hearing Sri. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil) as afore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. George Sebastian, submits that his clients will pay the entire outstanding in installments to be fixed by this Court; and that if they default any of such installments, they will voluntarily surrender vacant possession of the secured asset to the respondent - financial institution on the very next day after such default is committed.