IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 3575 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.D.DEVASSIA, S/O. DEVASSIA, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, PALAKKAYAM, THACHAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, 3H AVENUE, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 014 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 033 3. THE MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 014 R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.14661/ 2011 & WPC NO.19513/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.3575/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/03/07 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE. P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/07/08 P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/06/2010 P4 COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 19/07/2010. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/07/10. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/08/10. P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/08/10. P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/09/10. P9 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 22/12/10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 3575, 14661 & 19513 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, the petitioner is the same. He is challenging various proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the State Bank of India for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. Of course, the contention is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of One Time Settlement scheme, which has not been properly considered by the bank. The petitioner seeks a direction to the bank to consider his application for One Time Settlement scheme and to permit the petitioner to pay off the amounts due as per the one time settlement in instalments. This is opposed by the counsel for the bank. 2. Having heard both sides, I dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs within one month. The balance amount shall be paid in six equal monthly instalments starting from 1.10.2011. In the meanwhile, the bank shall consider the claim of the petitioner for One Time Settlement under the One Time Settlement Scheme, if one available and pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It would be open to the petitioner to pay either in accordance with the above direction or in accordance W.P(C) Nos. 3575, 14661 & 19513 of 2011 -: 2 :- with the order under the One Time Settlement scheme. If the petitioner pays the initial amount of Rs. 4 lakhs and the instalment amounts on due dates, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default for paying Rs. 4 lakhs or any one of the instalment, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice of proceedings in that regard. But, if the petitioner chooses to pay as per the One Time Settlement, payment shall be in accordance with the orders to be passed thereon within the time stipulated in that order. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/