IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18966 of 2010(U)
1. M.G.GIRIJAN, SON OF GOPI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.C.DEVASIA
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :25/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 18966 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.14 lakhs from the 1st
respondent Bank in the year 2003 in connection with the business,
creating security interest over the property in question. But because of
some unforeseen circumstances, the repayments were defaulted; under
which circumstance, the account was declared as ‘NPA’ and the Bank
proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act which is under challenge.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that,
the limited prayer now pressed before this Court is only to have the benefit
of ‘OTS’ and some other concessions/allowances stating that the
petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire liability, once the amount
liable to be satisfied by the petitioner is let known to him, giving such
concessions/allowances. The learned counsel also submits that, the
petitioner, to prove the bonafides, is ready and willing to deposit Rs.14
lakhs tomorrow.
3. The learned standing counsel for the Bank submits on
instructions that, as on date, no ‘OTS’ is prevailing in the Bank, with regard
to the ‘nature of the account’ of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the
learned counsel that, if the petitioner comes within the purview of any of
2
WP(C) No. 18966/2010
the existing schemes, the matter will be considered and eligible benefit will
be extended to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the
benefit of ‘Compromise Settlement Scheme’ is very much available and the
application submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent will be
forwarded to the 2nd respondent and the same will be caused to be
considered to extend benefits to the eligible extent, to the petitioner as well.
4. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is directed to deposit
a sum of Rs.14 lakhs in respect of the loan account on or before
28.06.2010, simultaneously submitting an application before the 1st
respondent for extending the benefit of ‘CSS’ or such other
concessions/allowances, if any. On submitting the application as above,
the same shall be forwarded by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent,
with necessary recommendations within one week thereafter. The
application as above shall be considered by the 2nd respondent and
appropriate orders shall be passed so as to extend eligible benefit/
concessions/allowances to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within two weeks thereafter. On communicating the outcome to
the petitioner, the balance amount due to be satisfied by the petitioner shall
be cleared within one week thereafter. Subject to this, the recovery
proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner
3
WP(C) No. 18966/2010
in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to
proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump
sum.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc