IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1105 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUTHAN.K.K., KALLURUMBIL HOUSE, KOLANI, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.4334, HEAD OFFICE: IDUKKI, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., PIN-658 602. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, MORNING AND EVENING COUNTER, THODUPUZHA, THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, IDUKKI. BY SRI.P.C.SADIDHARAN SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 1105 of 2010-K ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.2,60,000/- from the second respondent in the year 1996. But he was not at all eager to repay the due amount on time, which made him a defaulter. In such circumstances, the bank declared the loan account as 'NPA' and proceeded with further steps invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of 'One Time Settlement' and hence seeks for a direction to the concerned respondents to furnish the statement of accounts regarding the balance amount due and to grant sufficient time to settle the arrears. 3. The learned counsel for the bank submits on instructions, that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to have the benefit of 'One Time Settlement' way back in the year 2005. However, in spite of the benefit given by the bank, the petitioner remitted only a sum of Rs.50,000/- and issued three cheques which W.P(C) No. 1105 of 2010-K 2 however were returned as dishonoured. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, subsequently the petitioner effected the cash payment of Rs.1.5 lakhs, thus effecting a total payment of Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs. The learned counsel for the bank submits that the benefit of 'One Time Settlement' given to the petitioner in the year 2005 is no more in operation and cannot be revived at this distance of time. However, the learned counsel fairly submits that yet another 'Special Recovery Scheme' is available and valid till 31.1.2009 and if the petitioner so chooses, he can avail the benefit thereunder, provided the liability is satisfied in accordance with the stipulation under the Scheme; upon which he may be entitled to get a sizable reduction to an extent of about Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to satisfy the liability on or before 31st of this month and that the petitioner would like to clear the entire liability within three months, for which alternate arrangements are being made. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the bank submits that the actual liability under the loan transaction will be nearly Rs.11.94 lakhs, with interest and cost. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is W.P(C) No. 1105 of 2010-K 3 disposed of, permitting the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability under the loan transaction on or before 31st of March, 2010. This will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the bank directly for some or other concession, allowance or the benefits of any scheme, if it is in existence. Subject to the above, all further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if the petitioner does not hounour the commitment as above, the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, form the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab