IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 773 of 2005(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------- SAJIKUMAR, S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR, "MINNARAM", NAVAIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ R.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6950 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA,SC,KFC SRI.L.MOHANAN, SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 773/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTEDBY SURENDRAN NAIR IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.3.01. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP:4488/98 OF THE JFMC(MARK LIST) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ONE-TIME-SETTLEMENT PRODUCEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.04. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE OFFICIALS OF “THE CORPORATION” TO SURENDRAN NAIR, DATED 30.11.04. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.12.04. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 773 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the power of attorney holder of the proprietor of a firm by name, Surkshith Packings. The proprietor is one Surendran Nair. The proprietor availed of a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation(KFC). He defaulted repayment of the same. The KFC initiated recovery proceedings. They have taken over the unit as per the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act and are proceeding further. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to consider Exts.P3 & P5 applications of the petitioner seeking one time settlement in accordance with the norms and precedents prevailing in the 1st respondent Corporation.” 2. Petitioner's contention is that the petitioner's claim for one time settlement should be considered by the respondent. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KFC submits that no scheme for one time settlement is in force at present. He points out that during the deliberations before the Lok Adalat, the KFC had WPC : 773/05 -:2:- offered to consider remissions in payments, provided the petitioner pays 50% of the outstanding amounts, which the petitioner was not prepared to. The Standing Counsel now submits that the KFC is no longer inclined to extend any further concessions to the petitioner. 3. Despite the stand of the KFC, I am of opinion that, if the petitioner is willing to pay 50% of the outstanding amounts, the KFC shall consider whether any remissions in interest or other amounts payable can be given to the petitioner. In the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Petitioner shall pay 50% of the outstanding amounts within one month from today. If that amount is paid, the respondent shall consider Exts.P3 and P5 applications and see whether any remissions in interest or otherwise can be given to the petitioner in respect of the repayment of the loan amount. If the petitioner does not pay the 50% as directed above, the petitioner would not be eligible for the benefit of the above direction and the writ petition would stand dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb WPC : 773/05 -:3:-