High Court Kerala High Court

Sasidharan vs Sale Officer on 4 October, 2006

Kerala High Court
Sasidharan vs Sale Officer on 4 October, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5241 of 2006(Y)


1. SASIDHARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SALE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC,DC BANK,TS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :04/10/2006

 O R D E R
                              K.THANKAPPAN, J.
                          ------------------------------------
                           W.P.(C)NO. 5241 OF 2006
                          ------------------------------------


                     Dated this the 4th day of October, 2006


                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed of a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the second

respondent- Bank agreeing to repay the same in instalments on the agreed

rate of interest and the time stipulated. The loan was on the basis of over

draft facility. As the loan amount was not repaid as agreed for want of

sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner, Ext.P1 notice was issued

to him stating that his property which was mortgaged for availing of the

loan will be sold for realization of Rs.5,67,940/-. Aggrieved by the above,

the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. When this Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court stayed

further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 on condition that the petitioner

pays an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- within one month from the date of the

order. It is now reported that the petitioner has already paid Rs.1,00,000/-.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the

W.P.(C)NO.5241/2006 2

learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Counsel for the

second respondent submits that since the Bank had allowed over draft

facility, it was the duty of the petitioner to keep his account intact. The

second respondent also filed an Arbitration Case and an award has been

passed in favour of the Bank. However, the second respondent has agreed

to consider the feasibility of granting the benefits of One Time Settlement

Scheme to the petitioner.

4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file an

application for the benefits of one time settlement within 15 days from

today and remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within one month form today in

which case the second respondent shall consider the application and take a

decision in the matter within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- already paid by the petitioner

and Rs.50,000/- ordered to be paid shall be taken into account by the

second respondent while considering the application for the benefits of one

time settlement. Till a decision is taken in the matter, further proceedings

pursuant to Ext.P1 notice shall be kept in abeyance. If the petitioner fails

to pay the amount as directed, the Bank can proceed against the petitioner.

W.P.(C)NO.5241/2006 3

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/