IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19450 of 2007(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.K.JAYAN, S/O.KRISHNAN ACHARY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.EDAKUDIYIL JEWELLERY WORKS, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, REGD OFFICE, SIB HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, THRISSUR - 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER), THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.2702, DHARMODAYAM BUILDING, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. R1 BY MR. P. JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.K.K.JOHN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19450/2007-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 30/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 19450 of 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P1 and P2 proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under the relevant provisions for the SARFAESI Act, when the petitioner turned to be a defaulter in respect of the housing loan and three commercial loans availed by him from the respondent bank. The main prayer of the petitioner is that he might be given the benefit of 'one time settlement' of the loan account referred to in Exhibit P1 and P2 and to clear the liability in toto. 2. It is evident from the Exhibit P2 notice issued by the respondent bank u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act that the bank has already taken over the possession of the property. However, it is not revealed whether the property has been subjected to sale or as to the subsequent developments including whether the petitioner has been permitted to clear of liability acceding to his request for the benefit of one time settlement, particularly since no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent bank. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent bank to consider the claim put forth by the petitioner, giving an opportunity to clear the entire liability under the one W.P.(C) No. 19450 of 2007 -:2:- term settlement, if the said facility is still in existence as on date. The final orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd.