THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 19876 of 2010 Between: Syed Khader Basha..... PETITIONER(S) AND .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 19876 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) The petitioner along with his family members claims to have borrowed an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- from the respondent-bank. The respondent-bank initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in RP No.99 of 2007 on the premise that the amounts were not paid properly and obtained ex-parte decree on 28-9- 2007. According to the petitioner, the said ex-parte decree was obtained without serving summons on him. The petitioner therefore filed I.A.No.323 of 2008 to condone the delay of 137 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte final order. That application was allowed and the delay of 137 days was condoned and the application to set aside exparte final order was numbered as MA No.53 of 2008. Since the counsel was not present when the MA No.53 of 2008 was taken up, the matter was again dismissed for default on 31-3- 2009. 2) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.A.No.428 of 2010 to condone the delay of 342 days in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal dated 31-3-2009 and to restore the MA No.53 of 2009 to file. The Tribunal disposed of the said application directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate directly to the Bank on or before 25-8-2010 and to report compliance on 26- 8-2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3) Mr. A.M. Qureshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that when once OTS facility is provided to the petitioner, the Tribunal without any adjudication of the matter set aside the ex-parte order and directed to pay 50% of the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate directly to the Bank, which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bank issued recovery notice for Rs.1,45,72,374/, that as the petitioner was not issued with any notices in the O.A.No.226 of 2003 and the matter was decided ex-parte, and that if one time settlement scheme is to be applied the petitioner would have to pay the amount less than what was directed to be paid by the Tribunal. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that against the order passed by the Tribunal, an appeal lies and therefore no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 5) The Tribunal in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, directed him to pay 50% of the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate on or before 25-8- 2010 and that subject to compliance with the said conditional order, the order dated 31-3-2009 dismissing MA 53 of 2008 for default would be set aside and MA 53 of 2008 would be restored to file giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make use of the benefit of the scheme for OTS. 6) When the writ petition came up for consideration on earlier occasion, upon hearing the submission of the learned counsel on either side, while admitting the writ petition, this Court by its order dated 25-8-2010 in WPMP No.25184 of 2010 inter alia directed the petitioner to deposit forty lakh rupees within a period of three weeks from the date of that order, and that the said order has been complied with. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted at the bar that since the amount as directed by this Court has been deposited by the petitioner, further amount of twenty lakhs has to be deposited by the petitioner to make use of the benefit of the scheme of OTS. 7) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has already paid forty lakh rupees as directed by this Court, the petitioner shall pay further amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs only ) on or before 31st March 2011, and on such deposit of the amount, the MA 53of 2008 stands restored to file as ordered by the Tribunal, and the respondent-bank shall consider the case of the petitioner for benefit of the scheme of OTS. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall adhere to the terms and conditions of the OTS scheme. Subject to above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________ K.G.SHANKER, J. 16-3-2011/ kk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.19876 of 2010 16-3-2011