IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10344 of 2005(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.SWAMI CASHEW COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER- KRISHNA IYER, PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM. 2. H.KRISHNA IYER, MANAGING PARTNER, SWAMI CASHEW COMPANY, `KRISHNA BHAVAN', PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM. 3. KRISHNA MOORTHY, S/O.LATE SARASWATHY AMMAL, `KRISHNA BHAVAN', PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM. 4. NARAYAN SWAMY, S/O.LATE SARASWATHY AMMAL, `KRISHNA BHAVAN', PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM. 5. MAHALAKSHMY, D/O.LATE SARASWATHY AMMAL, `KRISHNA BHAVAN', PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.SUNIL SHANKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHINNAKKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (DBS). 4. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (K) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI R5 BY G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONERS ACCEPTING THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT OFFER DT.21.5.2001. P2: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY R1 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.3,69,000/- BY PETITIONERS DT.7.6.2001. P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY 1ST PETITIONER TO R1 DT.17.4.2002. P4: .DO. DT.11.11.2002. P5: TRUE COPY OF REVISED OTS GUIDELINES ISSUED BY RBI DT.29.1.2003.. P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM R1 TO 1ST PETITIONER DT.4.9.2003. P7: TRUE COPY OF PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO R1 DT.22.9.2003. P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM R2 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.9.7.2004. P9: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY 1ST PETITIONER TO R1 DT.17.7.2004. P10: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN O.A. 468/2003 DT.16.8.2004. P11: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 TO THE PETITIONERS DT.14.12.2004. P12: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY 1ST PETITIONER TO R1 DT.6.1.2005. P13: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.1006/2005 DT.10.2.2005. P14: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R2 TO 1ST PETITIONER DT.17.3.2005. P15: .DO. 1ST PETITIONER TO R1 DT.23.3.2005. P16: .DO. SENT BY R5 DT.22.2.05. P16(a): TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE METTING HELD ON 27.1.05. P17: TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT OFFER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE R1 DT.12.8.2005. P18: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R1 TO PETITIONERS DT.14.10.2005. P19: TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONERS TO R1 DT.28.12.2005. P20: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY H.HALEEFATHUDHEEN TO R1 DT.28.12.2005. P21: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY PETITIONERS TO R1-BANK DT.3.1.2006. P22: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R1-BANK TO PETITIONERS DT.24.1.2006. P23: TRUE COPY OF COMPROMISE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS TO R1- BANK DT.22.3.2006. P24: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R1-BANK TO PETITIONERS DT.31.3.2006. P25: TRUE COPY OF COMPROMISE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1- BANK DT.8.8.2006. P26: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY D.R.T., ERNAKULAM IN O.A. NO.468/2003 DT.8.8.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER SENT BY R1 TO PETITOINER DT.19.5.2005. R1(b): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MINUTES OF BANKER'S MEETING DT.4.5.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.10344 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT W.P.(C) is filed for a direction to the S.B.I. to grant OTS benefit to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners produced communication dated 16.6.2009 issued by the Bank stating that the petitioners' offer for settlement at Rs.28 lakhs is not acceptable to the Bank. Standing Counsel for the SBI submitted that amount due is over Rs.1.36 crores. In the circumstances, it is for the petitioners to give revised offer and if offer is not acceptable to the Bank, Bank is free to proceed for recovery. In any case I feel the Bank should give a counter offer in terms of the norms followed, containing the amount at which Bank can permit settlement of liability with time for payment, so that if petitioners' want, they can settle liability or otherwise face recovery. W.P.(C) is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms