IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9614 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.T.THITHEEVI,D/O.MOIDDEEN KOYA, THAYYALINKAL P.O,THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AND AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD(M 11),TIRUR. 2. TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AND AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD(M 11),TIRUR, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9614/2010-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER ON 04/02/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT DUE AS ON 20/04/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.9614 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan from the second respondent bank on the security of an item of immovable property. When the loan was not repaid the second respondent bank took steps to sell the security without the intervention of the court by invoking the provisions contained in the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Ext.P1 sale proclamation dated 4.2.2010 was thereupon issued proposing to sell the security by public auction on 23.3.2010 for realisation of the sum of Rs.10,57,517/- due as on 15.1.2010 with future interest and other charges. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 22.3.2010 challenging the sale notice. The only ground raised is that the request made by the petitioner for an opportunity to pay the amount due in instalments was not considered. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the W.P(C).No.9614 of 2010 -:2:- second respondent submitted on instructions that as on 31.8.2011 the liability of the petitioner is Rs.11,86,670/- and the expenses incurred for bringing the property to sale. The learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that though the sale was not held as the sale proclamation was published in the newspaper dailies, the petitioner will have to pay the expenditure incurred by the bank for bringing the property to sale. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent also submitted that the petitioner can either avail the benefit of the one time settlement scheme by paying the entire amount in lump on or before 15.9.2011 or pay the sum of Rs.11,86,670/- with future interest and other charges within a period of three months. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for an opportunity to pay the amount due in ten instalments. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that she is a defaulter. She does not also dispute the quantification of the liability made by the respondents. The only request made by the petitioner in the writ petition is for an opportunity to pay the amount due in instalments. This writ petition was filed on 22.3.2010 and it came up for admission on W.P(C).No.9614 of 2010 -:3:- the same day. On that day this Court, while granting an order staying the sale pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, directed the petitioner to pay 1/3rd of the total amount demanded on or before 10.4.2010. The petitioner has admittedly not deposited the said amount. It is thus evident from the conduct of the petitioner that her only attempt was to prevent the property from being sold on 23.3.2010. However, in the light of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the second respondent that the bank is prepared to extend the benefit of the one time settlement scheme introduced as per Circular No.41/2011 dated 23.6.2011 and Circular No.62/2011 dated 12.8.2011, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner approaching the second respondent bank claiming the benefit of the aforesaid circulars within one week from today, the bank shall inform the petitioner in writing of the amount which she will have to pay for one time settlement for closure of the loan account. The petitioner shall pay the amount thus determined by the bank in terms of the aforesaid circulars on or before 15.9.2011. Upon such payment being made, the bank shall close the loan account and return the documents of title to the petitioner. If on the other hand, the petitioner does not deposit the amount payable by her W.P(C).No.9614 of 2010 -:4:- for one time settlement as per the aforesaid circulars within the time stipulated, namely 15.9.2011, it will be open to the respondents to proceed to sell the security and to recover the amount due from the petitioner in lump. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.9614 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 23rd August, 2011