IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1411 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHRAF K.C., KIZHAKKINANCHALIL, PATHIMANGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, MAVOOR ROAD BRANCH, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SYNDICATE BANK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, BAKEL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1411 of 2011-B ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking direction against respondents to settle the loan account by providing maximum benefit in accordance with the circulars and directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, and also seeking such other incidental reliefs. It is evident that, settlement of the loan account is a matter which is coming within the purview of contractual obligations arising out of the terms of the loan agreement. This Court cannot issue any specific directions in this regard, as long as the petitioner is not claiming benefit of any particular scheme insisting upon the respondent for waiver of any amounts. It is brought to my notice that on an earlier occasion, proceedings was initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). But the same was withdrawn since the petitioner had effected considerable payments. It is conceded by learned standing W.P(C) No.1411 of 2011-B 2 counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that at present there is no steps initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 2. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank seeking settlement of payment by requesting waiver of interest/penal interest and other expenses to the possible extent. It is for the Bank to take appropriate decision on any such request made, depending on the policy of the Bank in the matter of settlement of the loan account in similar cases. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, rights and liberties of the petitioner to approach the Bank seeking settlement in any possible, is reserved. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with reservations as mentioned above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab