IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7280 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.R.PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O. P.K.RAMAN, KARUNA NIVAS, VELOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 003, SOLE PROPRIETOR, M/S. EURO COATINGS & CHEMICALS, PLOT NO.7, DEVELOPMENT AREA, CHALAPARAMBU, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 141. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.PRADEEP SRI.K.A.RIYAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, S.M.E.BRANCH, KOTTAYAM-686 003. SRI.K.S.DILIP, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 7280 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Proprietor of a Micro Industry. The loan was availed of from the respondent Bank. Default was committed, recovery steps were initiated and thereupon WP(C) No.31272/10 was filed. Stay was obtained on condition that the petitioner remits `2,00,000/-. The amount was paid. Subsequently, the writ petition itself was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing that if the petitioner approaches the Bank for reliefs enabling repayment of the loan, the same will be considered. According to the petitioner, thereafter representations were made and that those representations were not considered. It is in this context, this writ petition is again filed praying for a direction to the Bank to regularise the loan account. 2. Standing counsel for the Bank has obtained instructions. According to him, when Ext.P2 judgment was produced by the petitioner, the request of the petitioner was considered by the Bank and Bank extended the petitioner one time settlement facility by agreeing to settle the total outstanding WPC No. 7280/11 :2 : of more than `13,00,000/- by accepting payment of `7,00,000/- from the petitioner. According to the Bank, this payment was not made and therefore the offer of one time settlement lapsed. It was therefore that further action is taken by the Bank. 3. First of all, petitioner being a defaulter is bound to face the consequences of such default. In such a case, this Court will not be justified in directing the Bank to regularise the loan account of the petitioner. That apart, this is a case where pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment, the Bank had extended one time settlement facility to the petitioner, which was not availed of by him. In such a situation also, if the Bank has taken further action for recovery of its dues, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the matter or directing regularisation of a defaulted account. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp