IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37430 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.M.MUHAMMED FAZAL, S/O.LATE K.M.MUHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, MAXWIN EXPORTS, 12/712, KOCHANGADY, KOCHI 5. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.A.V.THOMAS SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- BANK OF INDIA, BAZAR ROAD, COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.7.08 , THE COURT ON 11/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF GUIDELINES DT 29.1.03 P2 COPY OF APPLICATION DT 29.4.03. P3 COPY OF FINAL ORDER DT 9.6.04. P4 COPY OF LETTER DT 30.1.06. P5 COPY OF PAPER PUBLICATION DT 23.12.07. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF LETTER DT 19.7.03. R1(B) COPY OF LETTER DT 11.8.03. R1(C) COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT. R1(D) COPY OF LETTER DT 13.1.06 R1(E) COPY OF LETTER DT 14.1.06 R1(F) COPY OF LETTER DT 16.1.06 R1(G) COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 30.1.06. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 37430 OF 2004 ==================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due from him to the respondent-bank. Respondent-bank filed O.A.No.235/2000 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for recovery of the amounts. The Debt Recovery Tribunal passed Ext.P3 final order in O.A.NO.235/2000. It is at that time, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking benefit of One Time Settlement scheme under Ext.P1 guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. This Court on 18.1.2006 passed the following order. “Heard. The respondent is directed to inform the petitioner the amount for which it can settle the petitioner's loan account under the one time settlement scheme, in the light of Ext.P1 scheme, taking into account Ext.P2 application. This, the respondent shall do within two weeks from today.” 2. Again, on 15.2.2006 this Court passed the following order. “Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The petitioner seeks stay of the sale of his property given by way of security scheduled to be held on 16.2.2006. He claims, he is entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P1. His W.P.(C).No. 37430 OF 2004 2 representation was not fairly considered or disposed of by the respondents. It is also submitted that the petitioner will be able to pay off the entire debts within two or three months. The bank would submit that it has offered to settle the account under the one time settlement scheme. But, the petitioner did not take any interest or pursue the matter any further. It has moved the DRT and obtained a decree. It has filed the execution petition and the sale is going to be held tomorrow. The petitioner may pay Rupees One Lakh to the respondent bank tomorrow. He may pay Rupees Three lakhs by 12.3.06. In that event, the sale shall not be confirmed and the Bank shall extend the facilities permissible under law, like waiver of a portion of interest, etc. that can be extended by it to a loanee in the usual course of business and consider granting reasonable time to the petitioner for paying the balance amount.” Still further on 5.7.2007, the following order was passed. “There will be a direction to the Bank to file a statement as to what was the amount due as per Ext.P1 as on 30.04.03 along with interest as on 30.06.07. The statement shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today.” On 2.2.2008, this Court directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs on 12.1.2008 and a further sum of Rs.10 Lakhs on or before 2.2.2008. Out of those amounts, the Rs. 5 Lakhs were paid, and out of Rs. 10 Lakhs, Rs.5 Lakhs were also paid. Still later, on 7.2.2008, this Court passed the following order. W.P.(C).No. 37430 OF 2004 3 “It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that out of the Rs.10 Lakhs payable, on 2.2.08, as per the interim order dated 11.1.08, he has paid only Rs.5 Lakhs and he seeks extension of time. I heard the counsel for the Bank also. Taking into account the submissions made by both sides, I direct that the petitioner shall pay the balance Rs. 5 Lakhs on or before the expiry of the interim order granted on 11.1.08.” 3. Counsel for the bank would submit that more than Rs. 16 Lakhs are still due from the petitioner towards repayment of the balance amount due. 4. I have heard counsel. 5. More than 3½ years have been elapsed since filing of the writ petition. I am of opinion that all possible indulgence has been shown to the petitioner in the matter. The learned counsel for the bank also would submit that there is no bona fides in the claims of the petitioner and that the only intention of the petitioner is to protract the matter as much as possible. I find considerable substance in the contention of the counsel for the bank. However, taking a lenient view, I grant one more month's time to the petitioner to pay off the entire balance due from the petitioner. The Bank shall issue a notice to the petitioner W.P.(C).No. 37430 OF 2004 4 demanding the balance amount. The petitioner shall pay that amount within one month from the date of receipt of the said demand notice. If the petitioner does not pay the amount as directed above, it would be open to the respondent to take such proceedings as is warranted by law to recover the same or continue the sale proceedings which are stated to be pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-