IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 33241 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. M.K.KUNJU KANOTH, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. THAMPIKUNJU, MK NIVAS, KILIYANAD ROAD, CALICUT-1. 2. LILLY KUNJU, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O. KUNJU KANOTH, MK NIVAS, KILIYANAD ROAD, CALICUT-1. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REP. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, INTEGRATED ZONAL OFFICE, SATHABDI BHAVAN, MINI BYEPASS ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-16. 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, INTEGRATED ZONAL OFFICE, SATHABDI BHAVAN, MINI BYE PASS ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-16. 3. SENIOR MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BANK ROAD BRANCH, EROTH BUILDING, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 33241 OF 2007 G ==================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against the Securitisation proceedings initiated by the Bank. 2. It is stated that benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme was applied for by the petitioners and that was granted, but however, as the petitioners did not make payment of the full amount in terms of the scheme, the benefit was recalled. Thereupon the Bank proceeded with the Securitisation proceedings and possession of the mortgaged property was also taken over. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed mainly contending that in the matter of extending the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, the Bank has violated the terms of Ext.P13 guidelines on OTS scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 3. This contention of the petitioners is answered by the WPC 33241/07 :2 : respondent stating that the benefit that was extended to the petitioners is not in terms of Ext.P13. The correctness of the contention so raised by the Bank is evident from the terms of Ext.P13 itself. A reading of Ext.P13 shows that the last date for receipt of application in terms of Ext.P13 was specified as 31st of March, 2006. Admittedly, in this case the benefit applied for and granted was in 2007. If that be so, the benefit that is extended is not the one that is provided for in Ext.P13 and that the conditions of the OTS that were extended. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the action of the Bank in fixing the terms of the OTS. 4. Though there is nothing on the merits of the contentions raised, it is now pointed out that since coercive action has been initiated against the property mortgaged by the petitioners, if the petitioners are desirous of liquidating the liability by paying the instalments, the petitioners may do so. In order to enable the petitioners to clear the amount as above, I feel the petitioners should be granted an instalment facility. 5. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioners shall clear the WPC 33241/07 :3 : amount that is due to the Bank in five equal monthly instalments, first of which will be payable in the first week of April, 2008 and the subsequent instalments will be payable in the first week of every succeeding month. It is directed that subject to payment as above, the Bank will defer proceedings initiated against them and in case default is committed, it will be free to continue the action that it has initiated. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp