IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32174 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MATHAI CYRIAC, FLAT NO.8C, B BLOCK, WILLINGTON ENCLAVE, THEVARA FERRY ROAD, COCHIN-682013. 2. BENNY CYRIAC, S/O.MATHAI CYRIAC, NELLIMELIL KATTOOKARA, KUTTAPUZHA ROAD, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.R.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVALLA-689711. SC SRI.A.S.P.KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).32174/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9/8/2004 IN NO.208/01 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL DATED 30/9/2004 IN OA.208/2001. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1/8/2006 ISSUED TO THE FIRM BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE BANK. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED TO THE FIRM BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE FIRM DATED 2/9/2006. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/1/2007 MADE BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE BANK. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/7/2010 FROM THE IST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT BANK. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32174/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners were partners of a firm by name “Mathai Cyriac & Sons” in Thiruvalla. The firm was engaged in liquor business. It is stated that the firm had availed of certain financial assistance from the Union Bank of India, Thiruvalla. When default was committed, petitioners filed O.A.208/2001 in which Ext.P1 final order was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Subsequently, on an application made by the petitioner, the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme was extended to them as per Ext.P3 communication. It is stated that as per Ext.P3, the total liability was agreed to be settled for an amount of Rs.17.5 Lakhs out of which, petitioners have then itself had paid Rs.10 Lakhs within the time specified. As far as the balance amount of Rs.7.5 Lakhs is concerned, the said amount ought to have been paid before 31.8.2006. Subsequently, the bank extended the time till 30.9.2006 as per Ext.P5. Although as per Ext.P4 receipts petitioners made payment of Rs.5 Lakhs, said payment was not within the time specified by the bank. The balance amount of Rs.2.5 Lakhs was however, not paid. As a result of the default thus W.P.(C).32174/11 2 committed by the petitioners, they lost the benefit of OTS Scheme offered by the bank as per Ext.P3. However, in 2010 petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs in a no lien account of theirs with the respondent Bank itself. However, the Bank did not settle the liability or released the documents accepting the said deposit, in satisfaction of its dues. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. As could be seen from the above facts, though the benefit of OTS Scheme has been offered to the petitioners, fact remains that the petitioners did not comply with the conditions specified by the Bank. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent is justified in contending that the petitioners lost the benefit and that for release of the documents which is now sought for, the liability should be discharged. However fact remains that the default occurred on the part of the petitioners is for reasons which are beyond their control and it is also stated that in 2010, petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs which amount W.P.(C).32174/11 3 is still available with the petitioners. In such circumstances, it is for the Bank to consider whether said amount could be accepted or that by any further payment, the liability could be settled. 4. In the above view of the matter, I direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and see whether liability could be discharged, and documents could be released to them. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for consideration of the matter as directed above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge