IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18364 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BINUJA, D/O.ABDUL MAJEED, THOLKADA HOUSE KAYYALEKKAL WARD, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, GENERAL MANAGER THE QUILON CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK, LTD.NO.960, KOLLAM. 2. RIYAS, S/O.ZAKARIA, THOLKADA HOUSE, KAYYALEKAL WARD, IRAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. R1 BY SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 18364 of 2010(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05/01/2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANK TO EXT.P1 NOTICE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN C.M.P. NO.3562/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM DATED 12/05/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT-P3 NOTICE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 18364 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a surety for repayment of certain loan amounts advanced by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is the husband of the petitioner. Repayment of the loan has fallen in arrears. Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, have been initiated by the 1st respondent, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider her claim for one time settlement facility. 2. This is opposed by the counsel for the 1st respondent bank. She points out that after taking the loan in 2000, the 2nd respondent has not paid any amount towards repayment of the loan account. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court is the contention raised. She further submits that the bank has not received any application for one time settlement from the petitioner, let alone Ext.P2. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am inclined to take a lenient view. The 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P2 as one filed before him and consider pass w.p.c.18364/10 2 appropriate orders on the claim for one time settlement. The petitioner shall comply with the order granting one time settlement benefit, promptly. To enable the bank to do so, I direct that the impugned proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. Orders shall be passed within that time. Needless to say, if the bank decides to give one time settlement facility to the petitioner and if the petitioner does not comply with the one time settlement order, it would be open to the 2nd respondent to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge