IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 5817 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.C.BAIJU, PONGASSERY HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. P.C.RAJEEV, PONGASSERY HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. NALINI CHANDRAN, PONGASSERY HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SRI.BIJI MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.5817 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that, Sri. P.P. Chandran, whose wife and children are the petitioners herein, had availed of a loan of Rs.28,60,000/-. It is stated that, although substantial payments were made default was committed. The loanee expired in April, 2007 and thereafter the petitioners submit that they approached the respondent by filing Ext.P15 requesting that they be permitted to settle the liability. No response was forthcoming and therefore this writ petition is filed praying that the respondents be directed either to re-schedule the loan or to allow the one time settlement scheme. 2. Referring to the statement that has been filed by the counsel, it is submitted before me that, to be eligible for re-scheduling the loan, the period of loan WP(c).nO.5817/09 2 should not have been over. According to the Standing Counsel, the period of loan in this case is over on 1.1.2008 and therefore the scheme does not permit re-schedulement of the loan. 3. In so far as the benefit of OTS claimed in the writ petition, it is contended that on evaluation of the assets the value of the assets is estimated as Rs.1.5. crores and that the total liability that is due is Rs.40.59 lakhs. It is stated that since the asset value is far more than the liability, the petitioners cannot claim one time settlement also. It is stated that irrespective of those, if the petitioners pays a substantial amount of 50% of the outstanding liability and makes an application, the respondent is willing to consider the case for one time settlement and extend certain concessionS. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present circumstances it is beyond their means to comply with the condition of payment of 50% and therefore if a reduction in the amount payable now is made, they will comply with the same and apply for the one time settlement scheme. WP(c).nO.5817/09 3 5. I heard both sides. Admittedly, the default has been committed and if so the respondent cannot be faulted for the steps they have taken. Going by the scheme, petitioners are also not eligible for other arrangements or even for one time settlement scheme. Irrespective of that the respondent is still willing to consider their case on satisfying the conditions. Having regard to the plea of the petitioner that the conditions of the respondent is too onerous, I direct that if the petitioner pays 1/3rd of the amount due within 4 weeks from today, and makes representation to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall consider the petitioners' case for one time settlement scheme and pass orders thereon. Orders shall be passed as above, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).nO.5817/09 4