IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 6006 of 2010(A) ------------------------- OA.188/2002 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- M.C.SAIDALIKUTTY HAJI, S/O.EASSAKKUTTY HAJI, MANCHANCHERRY MARATH HOUSE, THOZHUVANNOOR, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. C.DILIP MR. K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MANJERI. 2. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR. K.P.SUDHEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 6006 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the guarantor to a cash credit facility availed by his son in the year 1997 from the first respondent. Since, the repayments were not effected on time, the Bank was constrained to approach the DRT, by filing O.A. 188 of 2002, wherein final order has been passed, as borne by Ext. R1 (a), produced along with the counter affidavit of the first respondent, enabling the Bank to recover the amount due with interest as specified therein. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for the maximum indulgence and to provide the benefit of 'OTS', pointing out the various circumstances, including the treatment being undergone by the petitioner for 'carcinoma'. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.2.2010, the confirmation of sale scheduled to be conducted was intercepted, subject to further orders to be obtained from this Court. Both the learned counsel submits that, the sale did not took place. The various averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition have been W.P. (C) No. 6006 of 2010 : 2 : chosen to be controverted from the part of the Bank, in their counter affidavit. 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank, during the course of hearing, brought to the notice of this Court that, after filing the above Writ Petition, the request of the petitioner to extend the benefit of 'OTS' was considered and giving maximum deduction, the loan account was agreed to be settled and closed, on condition that, the petitioner satisfied a total sum of Rs. 6.5 lakhs, subject to further condition that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was deposited immediately on receipt of the notice issued in this regard. Though the notice was issued on 19.6.2010, compliance is still to be made by the petitioner and the balance liability is to be cleared on or before 19.9.2010. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner might be given one week's time to satisfy the initial deposit and that he will deposit the entire amount under the 'OTS Scheme' on or before the stipulated date. 5. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed to effect the initial deposit of Rs. 1 lakh within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and the balance, as agreed, shall be deposited on or before 19.9.2010. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be W.P. (C) No. 6006 of 2010 : 3 : kept in abeyance, for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the payments as above, the respondents will be liberty to proceed with further steps, for realization of the entire amount in lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd