IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9380 of 2011(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. M.SUNDARAAJAN, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5/90, CHANDRA NAGAR COLONY, KALLEPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. S.ELANGO, S/O.M.SUNDARAAJAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5/90, CHANDRA NAGAR COLONY, KALLEPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.O.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-695001. 2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CENTURY COMPLEX, MATHA KOVIL STREET, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD-678001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORTION, CENTURY COMPLEX, MATHA KOVIL STREET, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD 678001. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.9380 of 2011-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the father of the 2nd petitioner. They availed a term loan from respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of running a small scale industrial unit. The loan in question was availed in the year 2002 to the tune of Rs.35 lakhs. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan account in instalments, various coercive steps were initiated and the immovable property which was mortgaged for securing the loan was proceeded against. 2. It is evident that the 1st petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion and in Ext.P1 judgment, the revenue recovery steps were stayed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in two instalments. This court had also directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the request made for re- scheduling of the loan. It is further evident from Ext.P4 that the respondents 1 and 2 had permitted re-scheduling of the W.P(C) No.9380 of 2011-V 2 loan and the petitioners were required to remit the amount in monthly instalments. 3. However, it is conceded that the petitioners defaulted payment even after re-scheduling the loan account. It is further evident that on the basis of an approach made by the petitioner for settlement under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' he was permitted settlement through Ext.P5 order issued on 2.7.2009. The petitioner was permitted to make payment of a total sum of Rs.41.50 lakhs on or before 20.3.2008. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the amounts, inspite of the settlement offered, coercive steps of recovery were proceeded against and Ext.P7 notice was issued proclaiming sale of the property. 4. Through an interim order issued on 24.3.2011, confirmation of sale if any takes place, was directed to be kept in abeyance. It is submitted by both sides that the sale was not taken place on the date on which it was proclaimed through Ext.P7. W.P(C) No.9380 of 2011-V 3 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I do not find any legally tenable ground to interfere with the steps for recovery initiated. Eventhough the petitioner had pointed out various irregularities with respect to Ext.P7 notice published proclaiming the sale, it is not proper for this Court to adjudicate upon such issues at this stage. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and there is a total outstanding balance of more than Rs.78 lakhs. It is specifically pointed out that the petitioners are the defaulters, who had failed to take benefits of the re- schedulment as well as the 'one time settlement' granted by the respondents. Inspite of such contentions it is conceded that the respondents 1 and 2 are ready and willing to consider request if any made by the petitioners, for permitting settlement of the account by paying the amount arrived at through Ext.P5, along with payment of belated interest as per the norms prescribed by the respondent W.P(C) No.9380 of 2011-V 4 Corporation. 7. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are limiting their reliefs to the extent of seeking direction for considering request for permitting settlement of the loan account on the basis of Ext.P5 on payment of belated interest which will be paid in accordance with the terms of the scheme which is prevailing by respondents 1 and 2. 8. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners can be given a chance to approach respondents 1 and 2 seeking revival of one time settlement. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider request if any made by the petitioners for revival of the one time settlement. If the petitioners make any such representation within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered by respondents 1 and 2 and an appropriate W.P(C) No.9380 of 2011-V 5 decision shall be taken in accordance with the norms prescribed. 10. In order to facilitate the petitioners to approach the respondents as directed above and in order to afford the respondents an opportunity to consider the same and to take a decision, further steps for sale of the property shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. 11. It is made clear that attachment if any effected on the properties will continue. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab