IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37279 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PRAVEEN, PYNADATHU AYYAMPILI HOUSE, PULIYANAM-683572. BY ADVS.MR.DINESH R.SHENOY MR.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) MR.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DENA BANK, REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER, DENA BANK, CHENNAI REGIONAL OFFICE, 32, VENKATESHAN, STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600017. 2. THE SENIOR MANAGER, DENA BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, JOSE JUNCTION, COCHIN-16. R1 BY ADV. MR.C.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner’s father had availed a financial facility from the respondent Bank. But because of the serious ailments he could not honour the commitment in repaying the due amount and bid for farewell to this world. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent Bank and requested the benefit of 'One Time Settlement Scheme' so as to enable him to wipe off the entire liability. It is seen from the admitted pleadings and proceedings, that the Bank had granted the benefit of 'OTS' directing the petitioner to satisfy a total sum of Rs.28 lakhs, to be paid within two months. The said stipulation could not be satisfied by the petitioner due to some or other reason and the benefit of 'OTS' was withdrawn and the Bank proceeded with further steps under the SARFEASI Act, which are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, with reference to the counter affidavit filed, submits W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009 2 that the claim of the petitioner for OTS has already been considered and rejected. This issue is no more alive. More so, there is no scheme for OTS as on date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken earnest efforts to tap other sources to generate funds and to clear the entire liability, for which some breathing time is sought for. 4. It is also stated that the entire liability to the Bank will be cleared on or before 31st of March, 2010 and that the petitioner might be permitted to approach the Bank for availing concessions to the possible extent. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to clear the entire liability under the loan transaction on or before the 31st of March, 2010. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Bank for availing the concessions, if any, which of course will be at the hands of the respondent Bank to be considered and given effect to the permissible limit. W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009 3 Subject to the above, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is made by the petitioner in honouring the commitment as above, respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009 4 W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009 5 W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009 6