IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 16206 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.MEERA SAHIB, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.SHEIK MUHAMMED RAWTHER, JENNATH, EVANJALICKAL CHURCH ROAD, M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16206 OF 2008 & I.A.No.13543 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent in 1979. On default in repayment, the bank sued the petitioner in 1985 before the civil court. That suit was decreed on 31.10.1986. An execution petition was filed on the basis of that decree in 1988. With the coming into force of the RDB Act, that proceeding was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and a recovery order was issued on 2.1.2002. The Bank, thereafter, invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued notice under Section 13 (2) on 23.1.2007, for an amount of Rs.30,01,000/- as on 31.12.2006. Even after that, the bank was benevolent to grant facility of One Time Settlement scheme. The petitioner even failed to pay that. It appears that there was some arrears under the taxation laws. WPC.16206/08 Page numbers 2. The decree and recovery order having become final, this Court can evidently act on the premise that the amounts claimed by the bank on the basis of that decree and recovery order cannot be disputed. 3. The petitioner's request is that he may be permitted to enjoy the benefit of OTS scheme. The bank, with the passage of time, does not agree to this. Though this writ petition was presented on 29.5.2008, on the plea that the amount of Rs.9.90 lakhs would be paid in August, 2008, the petitioner was able to avert further proceedings merely because of the pendency of this writ petition even without an interim order. Under such circumstances, on 6.10.2008, an interim order was issued directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.12 lakhs. Even that amount has not been deposited as ordered. He has placed Rs.8 lakhs in a no-lien account and filed I.A.14543/08, essentially taking the stand that he need pay only the amount of Rs.9.90 lakhs and may be permitted to conclude the transaction accordingly. WPC.16206/08 Page numbers I find no ground to extent the writ jurisdiction to aid the petitioner, to treat the court as a bargaining table and to further delay the recovery proceedings. The writ petition and the I.A. therefore fails. They are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.