IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 5428 of 2008(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- S. JAMALUDEEN, PROPRIETOR, SHEEJA SPLINTS AND VENEERS INDUSTRIES, SHEEJA MANZIL, KARICODE, NEAR SWATHY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, C.P.G.P. TOWERS, UPPALAM ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Q.S.ROAD (MAIN), KOLLAM-1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 5428 OF 2008 U ==================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed of a loan from the respondent Bank in 1989. According to the counsel for the Bank,the liability as on 31/12/2007 is Rs.63,50,971/-. Proceedings were initiated against the mortgaged assets of the petitioner and possession has been taken over on 14/1/2008. At that stage writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings. 2. Petitioner submits that the liability is not as huge as pointed out by the counsel for the Bank. Referring to Ext.P6 dated 14/11/2007, petitioner submits that the liability as on 31/8/2004 was only Rs.33,99,319/-. The complaint in this writ petition is mainly that the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P7 for a One Time Settlement has not been considered by the Bank. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the petitioner had offered Rs.4 lakhs on 8/1/2008 for settling the entire liability. Counsel WPC 5428/08 :2 : for the Bank submits that the Bank has not given any reply to Ext.P7, since the petitioner has not made deposit of 1/3rd of the liability in terms of the rules governing the One Time Settlement Scheme, which according to him, is a condition precedent. If there is a rule requiring deposit as pointed out by the counsel for the Bank, since this has not been complied with, I cannot find fault with the Bank in not considering Ext.P7. Evidently, in this case the petitioner is a defaulter and on every conceivable factual issue, there is dispute between the parties. These disputes cannot be sorted out in a writ petition and therefore, the petitioner has to seek his statutory remedies. Without prejudice to the contentions and the remedies that are available to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp