IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8449 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.V.DINESAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, PARATHIAM PALLIL HOUSE, THAIKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), K.S.F.E. LTD., R.R.UNIT, KUMARANASAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-1. 2. MANAGER, K.S.F.E.BRANCH, KALAMASSERI BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, K.S.F.E., LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 8449 of 2010-E ---------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed two loans from the second respondent, creating security interest over the property in question. Since the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, steps were taken by the respondents for realization of the entire amount, also by causing the property to be sold in public auction as revealed from Ext.P1, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already effected various payments as revealed from Exts.P2 to P5 and has filed Ext.P6 representation before the second respondent seeking for furnishing a statement of accounts. The learned counsel also submits that the only prayer now put forth by the petitioner is to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement, so as to enable the petitioner to clear the liability. 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that, under the 'first loan', a total sum of Rs.5,41,407/- is due as on 31.3.2010 and that the petitioner was W.P(C) No. 8449 of 2010-E 2 eligible to have the benefit of One Time Settlement as on that date, by paying a total sum of Rs.3,76,607/- to wipe off the liability under the said loan. 4. With regard to the second loan, it is stated that a total sum of Rs.5,46,309/- is required as on 31.3.2010, whereas under the One Time Settlement a sum of Rs.3,85,993/- was to be paid. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Scheme for One Time Settlement is already over. 5. However, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not pressing any of the challenges raised in the Writ Petition as to the correctness or sustainability of the steps/notices taken/issued by the respondents and that the petitioner did never get any effective opportunity to have the benefit of One Time Settlement and further that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 'belated interest' for availing the benefit of One Time Settlement this Court finds that the interest of justice could be met safeguarding the interest of both the sides, if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.3,76,607/- in respect of the first loan and another sum of Rs.3,85,993/- in respect of the other loan (OTS amounts as mentioned above) with W.P(C) No. 8449 of 2010-E 3 'belated interest' within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the due amount as above, it will open to the respondents to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No. 8449 of 2010-E 4