IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 480 of 2010() -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 2006/2010 DT. 15.2.2010) APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ T.P. ABDUL RAHMAN, ANAPPARA HOUSE, KANTHAPURAM, UNNIKULAM.P., KOILANDY, KOZHIKODE - 673 574. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCOR, BALUSSERY BRANCH, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL-II, ZONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR , J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.480 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 31st March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He availed a loan from the first respondent Bank, which is now in default. As a matter of fact, the Bank has moved the competent court and has obtained a decree against him. While so, the Bank notified the One Time Settlement Scheme (for short, 'the Scheme). Those persons, against whom, action was taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, are eligible to get the benefit of the Scheme. But, the very same Scheme provides that the cases decreed are not eligible for the said benefit. In view of the said clause, the claim of the appellant for extending the benefit of the Scheme was rejected by the Bank, though it moved against him under Section 13(4) of the said Act. So, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Single Judge upheld the contention of WA NO.480/2010 2 the Bank and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to canvass for the position that though it is a case covered by a decree, still action having been taken under Section 13(4) of the Act, his case will qualify for extension of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. Going by the Scheme, we notice that when action is taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, where there is no decree of the Civil Court, the concerned loanee may be eligible for the benefit, but, when the Scheme specifically excludes the case covered by a decree, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. 4. When confronted with the above position, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for granting extension of time to pay the amounts, as per the instalment facility provided by the learned Single Judge, in the judgment under appeal. On this point, we heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank. 5. Having regard to the facts of the case and the WA NO.480/2010 3 submissions made by both sides, we extend the time limit for depositing Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) by one month from the time limit prescribed by the learned Single Judge, in the judgment under appeal. The time limit for paying the balance instalments are also correspondingly postponed by one month. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. tgs J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.480 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 31st March, 2010.