IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6051 of 2008(U) ------------------------- ST.803/2006 of J.M.F.C. - III, KOCHI ST.804/2006 of J.M.F.C. - III, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ------------- MANI C.KAPPAN, KAPPIL HOUSE, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT: -------------- INDIAN BANK, SHANMUGHAM ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6051 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to permit the petitioner to close the accounts of M/s.Kappan Wines and Onattu Liquors, as per the terms of One Time Settlement scheme arrived at between the parties in 2004. 2. It is seen that the petitioner had committed default in repaying the dues to the bank and finally an application was made for the benefit of OTS and it was extended to the petitioner by Ext.P2. It is not in dispute that the payment was not made in terms of Ext.P2. But, according to the petitioner, in January 2005, he had given two cheques. Though the petitioner submits that these cheques were given towards the settlement of the dues under the OTS, the bank has denied these averments in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed. Thus, the OTS did not materialize and the present situation is that the petitioner is being prosecuted for dishonouring the aforesaid cheques and securitisation proceedings are also continued. 3. At this stage, this Writ Petition is filed praying that the WPC No. 6051 OF 2008 2 Bank should be directed to permit the petitioner to close the accounts as per the terms of the OTS which was entered into between the parties in 2004 and the petitioner may be permitted to make payment of the agreed amount along with interest. 4. According to the Bank, the period of OTS has expired long ago and in view of that there is no question of reviving the an OTS which is no longer exists. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by both sides, I must confess my inability to accept the petitioner’s claim for OTS which was entered into between the petitioner and the bank as is seen from Ext.P2. Unfortunately no payments were made as per the schedule prescribed under the OTS and the period of OTS has expired. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in directing the bank to give to the petitioner the benefit of a scheme which is no longer in existence. It is now submitted by the counsel for the bank that if the petitioner makes an application for settlement of the liability, the bank will consider the same in terms of its own scheme subject to its eligibility. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is WPC No. 6051 OF 2008 3 interested in availing that benefit. Therefore, I direct that if the petitioner makes an application for settling the liability to the bank, the bank will consider the same in terms of the available scheme and take final decision in that matter. 7. Petitioner submits that since he is interested in availing OTS which is now prevailing, the bank will be directed not to proceed with the criminal case that are now pending. Since the case is now pending and is posted to 23.5.08, according to the parties, I feel that if the bank takes a decision on the representation to be made by the petitioner before that date, petitioner can have no grievance on this count. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall file an application within two weeks from today; the respondent bank shall consider the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 6051 OF 2008 4 WPC No. 6051 OF 2008 5