IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15565 of 2011() -------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. JOHNSON T.O, PROPRIETOR, M/S DELIGHT INDUSTREIS, JOLLY HOUSE, PANAYAM PO, PERINADU, KOLLAM 691 601. 2. JOHN MATHEW, USHUS, THATTARUKONAM, KARAMCODE PO, KOLLAM 691 579. BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.P.S.PREETHA SRI.SAIJU S. SRI.T.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHIEF MANGAER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, STATUE AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, CIVIL STATION BRANCH DEVAPRIYA COMPLEX, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, KOLLAM 695 009. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 15565 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE IN C.M.P. NO. 3057/2011 FROM THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2011 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15565 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioners to the respondents. The petitioners do not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioners only seeks facility to pay off the balance amounts in instalments. The petitioners also seek a direction to the bank to consider the claim for One Time Settlement benefit. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. This Court had passed an interim order on 9.6.2011, which reads as follows: “Standing counsel for respondents is directed to get instructions and to file statement if so advised. Meanwhile dispossession and sale of the property pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance if already not dispossessed subject to W.P.(C)No.15565/11 2 condition of petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on or before 30.6.2011”. It is admitted that the petitioners have paid the amount of Rs.15 lakhs as directed in the interim order. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioners shall pay the balance amount due in eight equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioners pay the instalments on due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioners commit default in payment of any one of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. The petitioners may approach the bank for any benefit as per the policies of the bank and the bank shall consider the claim in accordance with the norms and policies of the bank. The bank shall issue a statement of accounts to the petitioners within two weeks. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.15565/11 3 W.P.(C)No.15565/11 4