IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 29830 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PRAVEEN, PYNADATHU AYYAMPILI HOUSE PULIYANAM 683 572. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DENA BANK, REP BY CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER, DENA BANK, CHENNAI REGIONAL OFFICE 32, VENKATESHAN STREET, T NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 2. THE SENIOR MANAGER DENA BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH,JOSE JUNCTION, COCHIN -16 BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 29830 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The case has got a long history. The petitioner's father had availed a term loan of ` 7.5 lakhs and a cash credit facility of ` 15.25 lakhs from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. When the due amount was not satisfied on time, the Bank proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act, which was sought to be challenged by filing W.P.(C)37279 of 2009 seeking for the benefit of OTS; simultaneously assuring that the entire liability to the Bank would be cleared on or before the 31st of March, 2010. It was disposed of accordingly, as per Ext.P12 judgment with liberty to approach the Bank for getting concessions to the possible extent, as noted in paragraph No.4 of the judgment. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of Ext. P12, the petitioner approached the Bank by filing an application for OTS, which was considered and acted upon by the Bank by issuing Ext.P13 order whereby, the total liability of the W.P.(C) No. 29830 OF 2010 2 petitioner was stipulated as ` 28 lakhs, out of which ` 4.70 lakhs kept in no-lien account was to be appropriated as specified therein and the balance of ` 23.30 lakhs was to be cleared on or before 31.08.2010. Admittedly, the petitioner could not clear the liability as stipulated in Ext. P13 and when the Bank proceeded with further steps, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the prayer that the petitioner might be granted time till the end of the current financial year to clear the liability settled under the OTS. 3. It is stated that in compliance with the various interim orders passed by this Court, the amounts stipulated therein have already been satisfied and the petitioner seeks for further time by way of installments to clear the balance liability under Ext. P13. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit submits that the request of the petitioner is not liable to be entertained under any circumstances for the obvious reason that the petitioner had W.P.(C) No. 29830 OF 2010 3 been given benefits to the maximum possible extent, as discernible from Ext. P13 itself, despite which the liability was not cleared as scheduled therein. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the prayer in the writ petition itself is only for granting time till the end of the current financial year, simultaneously pointing out that the actual liability of the petitioner is more than ` 53 lakhs as on 31.12.2010 and that matter stands already settled vide Ext.P12 judgment. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to keep the matter pending any further. It will be open to the petitioner to clear the entire liability on or before 31.03.2011, i.e. the date on which the current financial year ends, failing which the respondents will be free to proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the due amounts, in accordance with the relevant provision of law. No further interference is possible in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs Satyawati W.P.(C) No. 29830 OF 2010 4 Tondon and others[(2010 ) 8 SCC 110] The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk