IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2482 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.ACCURATE WELDING ELECTRODES, PLOT NO.6,FUNCTIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, PERINGANDOOR,ATHANI,THRISSUR REP.BY MR.SHINE.K.S., THE DIRECTOR. BY ADV. MR.AYPE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,CANARA BANK, ATHANI BRANCH,THRISSUR-680 771. BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK, MR.V.J.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.2482 of 2010-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act, for realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has claimed the benefit of One Time Settlement and earnest steps are being made to satisfy the liability. But the respondent Bank has already taken possession of the industrial unit of the petitioner, which has very much adversely affected the rights and interest of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits, with reference to the statement filed, that the petitioner has not revealed the entire facts and figures before this Court particularly in so far as the petitioner was extended the benefit of One Time Settlement earlier as revealed from Annexure C. But the petitioner W.P(C) No.2482 of 2010-I 2 was not at all eager to satisfy the liability availing the benefit under the One Time Settlement and that no amount was paid. It was in the said circumstance, that the Bank was constrained to proceed with further steps causing issuance of Ext.P1 and other consequential steps. It is stated that there is no merit or bonafides in the petition and the action pursued by the respondent Bank is very much in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of reasonable instalments. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner does not intend to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal and that the steps taken by the respondent Bank are not intended to be challenged in any manner. 5. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of ‘six’ equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the W.P(C) No.2482 of 2010-I 3 due amount as above, it will open to the bank, to proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.2482 of 2010-I 4