IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18085 of 2009(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.ABDUL VAHEED, S/O.MOHAMMED RAWUTHER, PUTHUVEEDU, T.K.M.NAGAR, T.K.M.COLLEGE P.O., KARICODE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KOLLAM. 3. SENIOR MANAGER, KADACKAL BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KADACKAL. MR. B. VINOD SC FOR KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18085 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T In 1994, the petitioner availed of a cash credit facility of Rs.3.50 lakhs from the Kadackal branch of the 2nd respondent Bank. Default was committed and arbitration proceedings were initiated, which resulted in Ext.P1 award rendered in July, 1999 for an amount of Rs.6,01,205/- with interest. 2. According to the petitioner subsequently he paid Rs.3.50 lakhs. Further remittance was not made and recovery proceedings were initiated. Thereupon, he filed WP(C) No.10670/2008 challenging the recovery proceedings. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the petitioner to pay Rs.3 lakhs within three weeks, and the Bank was directed to fix instalments and intimate to the petitioner the amount due. 3. The petitioner submits that, in pursuance to Ext.P4, the Bank did not give any intimation. Despite that, in addition to Rs.3 lakhs as ordered in the judgment, he paid a further amount of Rs.1 WP(C) No.18085/2009 -2- lakh more. It is stated that further payments were not made, and therefore, the recovery proceedings have been revived by the Bank. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 4. The petitioner contends that the Bank is going to introduce a One Time Settlement scheme, and if the recovery is deferred for a short while, he will be able to avail of the benefit of the said scheme. It is on this basis, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Bank to defer further proceedings for a period of four months. 5. I heard the learned standing counsel for the Bank, who submits that as at present, there is no OTS scheme in vogue, and that the next scheme is likely to be announced only in March, 2010. 6. The petitioner admits the liability due to the Bank. This Court in Ext.P4 judgment has already directed the Bank to fix instalments and intimate to the petitioner, in order to enable the petitioner to discharge the liability in that manner. But, however, nothing has been shown to indicate that any such intimation has been given. In view of this, the Bank has to comply with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment. WP(C) No.18085/2009 -3- 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that within two weeks from today, the petitioner shall make a payment of Rs.3 lakhs to the Bank. Subject to such payment, coercive action, if any, initiated against the petitioner will stand deferred. It is directed that in the meanwhile the balance amount due from the petitioner will be intimated to him and shall be paid in four equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid by the petitioner on or before 29/08/2009, and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 29th of every succeeding months. It is clarified that in case any default is committed in making payment of any of the instalments as above, the Bank is free to continue recovery proceedings. 8. It is also clarified that in the meantime, any OTS scheme is announced, it will be open to the petitioner to claim the benefit of such scheme. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 & 3 for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg