IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1793 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M/S.UNISON INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR JOSE P.MATHEW G.V.IYER ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 003. 2. M/S.PARKSON ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR JOSE P.MATHEW G.V.IYER ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 003. 3. VARGHESE P.MATHEW, S/O.P.O.VARKEY, AGED 50 YEARS PARAYATHUKATTIL HOUSE,CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD KADAVANTHRA COCHIN 682 003. 4. SMT. NEENA ELEIZABETH VARGHESE W/O.VARGHESE P.MATHEW, PARAYATHUKATTIL HOUSE CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHRA COCHIN 682 003. 5. JOSE P.MATHEW, S/O. P.V.MATHEW PARAYATHUKATTIL HOUSE CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHRA COCHIN 682 003. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SENIOR MANAGER, UCO BANK, P.B.NO.63 FORT COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ZONAL HEAD) ZONAL OFFICE, UCO BANK OVERBRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNDER SARFAESI ACT, UCO BANK P.B.NO.43, FORT COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, ASSET MANAGEMENT BRANCH UCO BANK , AMBAT BUILDING, IST FLOOR 218, PATHERI ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI 600006. ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 1793 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had approached this Court earlier challenging the coercive steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act by filing W.P.(C)No.32558 of 2009, which culminated in Ext.P18 judgment. As per Ext. P18, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20 lakhs towards a portion of the outstanding liability, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Bank for extending some or other concessions as sought for in the representations marked as Exts. P14 and P15 therein. The respondent Bank was also directed to consider waiver of the amounts to the possible extent and to intimate the petitioner about the decision taken on such requests, also adding that the petitioner shall be provided with a reasonable time for payment of the due amount, so arrived in the settlement, if any. 2. Pursuant to Ext. P18 judgment, the matter was considered by the respondent Bank, who issued Ext.P20, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy a sum of Rs.138.30 lakhs which is shown as the outstanding liability, after giving concessions, to be satisfied by way of 'three' installments. The grievance of the petitioner is that the W.P.(C) No. 1793 OF 2010 2 respondent Bank has not acted in tune with the directions given by this Court vide Ext.P18 and further that the eligible concessions have not been extended. It is also stated that the action being pursued by the Bank is only to harass the petitioner and the entire liability is sought to be cleared within a period of just three months, submits the learned Counsel. 3. The learned Counsel or the Bank submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the outstanding liability actually due from the petitioner is Rs.1,51,58,275.95/- and after considering the matter in detail, the Bank decided to waive a total sum of Rs.13,28,275.95/-. It is stated that the entire penal interest and part of interest have been omitted, besides waiving the expenses incurred on account of paper publication in respect of both the loan accounts. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side, this Court finds that the respondent Bank has substantially complied with the directions given by this Court vide Ext. P18 and that the liability has been scaled down to the possible extent as contended from the part of the Bank. The petitioner, having not disputed the computation of the figures , is liable to satisfy the said amount. W.P.(C) No. 1793 OF 2010 3 5. After hearing the persuasive submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the entire liability by way of 'six' installments, the first of which shall be paid on or before 30.03.2010 to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is made in effecting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps to realize the entire amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk