IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 18122 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: 1 ------------- THRESSIMMA THOMAS MANNAMPLACKEL HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU, KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KANJIRAPPALLY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, PADIMATTOM COMPLEX IST FLOOR, NEAR BUS STAND, N.H. 220, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, 763 ANNA SALAI, CENTRAL OFFICE ANNEX BUILDINGS CHENNAI. 3. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK MOUNT PALACE BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS' AUTHEIRSED OFFICER NO. 807, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18122 of 2008 EXT.P1: COPY OF 13(2) NOTICE DATED 26.5.2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION . EXT.P3: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 27.1.2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE BANK DTD 1.8.2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 13.2.2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE DEEPIKA NEWS PAPER DTD 5.6.2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 28.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.18122 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The petitioner had earlier challenged the proceedings before the Tribunal in an appeal and lost, since the appeal was dismissed for default. The petitioner now confines her relief for a direction to the respondents to consider the OTS proposal filed by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P7. The learned Standing Counsel for the bank points out that, that was on 28.2.2008 and the petitioner has not put forward any concrete proposal for OTS. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent officer among the respondents to consider the petitioner's OTS proposal and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with the bank's policy and guidelines, if a concrete proposal is put forward by the petitioner within three weeks from today. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd