IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 25888 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MATHEW STEPHEN, S/O.STEPHEN, VADAKKEKUZHIKKAKATHU, KUMALY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, ERNAKULAM. 2. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KUMALY BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC FOR BANK SRI.SUMESH KUMAR.N.C. SRI.M.P.R.NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25888/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/- DATED 22.7.98. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.8.07 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.350,000/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25888 OF 2007 F ===================== Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent Bank, who had availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs way back in 1987. Default was committed and as a result thereof, interest mounted. Finally the petitioner approached the Bank for settlement of the liability when he was told that the amount payable was Rs.8 lakhs. It is in that context, writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Bank to accept Rs.3.5 lakhs that he offered towards loan taken by him and to close the loan account and release the documents. 2. An interim order was passed by this court on 24/8/07 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.3.5 lakhs within one week and it is now submitted that this order has been complied with. Petitioner also submits that prior to that remittance, he had paid WPC 25888/07 :2 : another amount of Rs.50,000/- also towards his liability. 3. Pointing out the aforesaid remittances that he has made, petitioner now submits that he proposes to make an application to the Bank for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme and the Bank may be directed to consider his application. 4. I heard the counsel for the Bank, who points out that the loan was availed of in 1987 and the remittance of Rs.50,000/- as submitted by the petitioner was made in 1998. It is also pointed out that after giving credit to all payments that are made by the petitioner, presently about Rs.10 lakhs is still remaining due from the petitioner. According to the standing counsel, petitioner can claim the benefit of OTS only if a substantial payment is made. 5. If as a matter of fact Bank has a scheme for OTS and the petitioner satisfies the conditions thereof, I see no justification for declining the request made by the petitioner for considering his case also for OTS. However, before the petitioner can ask for a direction requiring the Bank to consider his request for OTS, petitioner should deposit a portion of the amount due. WPC 25888/07 :3 : 6. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. 1) That within one month from today, petitioner shall remit an amount of Rs.2 lakhs with the respondent Bank. 2) Once such remittance is made, petitioner will be free to make an application to the respondents within 4 weeks, for settlement of his case in the OTS scheme, if any such scheme is still in vogue. 3) On receipt of such an application of the petitioner, petitioner's request for OTS shall be considered and pass orders thereof, as expeditiously as possible. 4) If the order passed by the respondents is in favour of the petitioner, the remittance made by the petitioner as directed in this judgment shall be given credit towards his liability. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp