IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21847 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOMALAM GOVINDAN, W/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 55 YEARS, MINI HOUSE, BLOCK NO. 236, CHOTTUPARA P.O., THOVALAPPADY, KALLAR-IDUKKI, PIN-685 552. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRESIDENT, IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUNDIYENNA BRANCH, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUNDIYENNA BRANCH, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUNDIYENNA BRANCH, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI. MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR THE BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.21847 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the 3rd respondent. Default was committed and Ext.P5 demand notice was issued. The petitioner sought the benefit of instalment facility by filing Ext.P6. Response was not forthcoming. It was complaining of non-consideration of the representation, and praying that she be permitted to discharge the liability in instalments, so that coercive action could be avoid, this writ petition is filed. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has been heard. He rightly points out that the petitioner was extended the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, which was not availed of, and therefore, cannot now again seek the benefit thereunder. 3. If as a matter of fact, the benefit of OTS Scheme has been extended to him, and the same was not availed of, obviously, WP(C) No.21847/2009 -2- the petitioner cannot again claim the benefit thereunder. 4. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner is only seeking an instalment facility, I am inclined to think that the petitioner should be permitted to pay the amount in instalments, so that the distress action could be avoided. 5. Having regard to the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the amount due from the petitioner will be permitted to be paid in six equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15/08/2009, and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 15th of every succeeding months. Subject to payment as above, coercive action shall be deferred and in case default is committed, the respondents will be free to recover the amount due, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg