IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2389 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.K.SAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O.LATE ABDUL KAREEM, PERUVANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANKADAVU, DOWN HILL (POST), MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R3 BY SR.G.P.SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.2389 of 2008-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a debtor of the first respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the first respondent that as of now, the bank is inclined to extend to the petitioner the one time settlement scheme. 2.Having heard the learned counsel for parties, I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned action. However, it is stated that if one time settlement scheme is extended to the petitioner, the total amounts to be remitted would, obviously, be lesser than what is now covered by the impugned proceedings. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, the amounts to be remitted WP(C)2389/2008 -: 2 :- in terms of the one time settlement scheme have to be paid during the current financial year itself. 3.In the result, this writ petition is disposed of confirming the impugned proceedings, however directing that the petitioner will be entitled to one time settlement scheme as offered by the first respondent and he shall, if so advised, avail and pay off the outstandings in terms of such scheme. If such remittance is not made, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with the impugned action. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/