IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1793 of 2010(Y)
1. M/S.UNISON INTERNATIONAL
... Petitioner
2. M/S.PARKSON ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES
3. VARGHESE P.MATHEW
4. SMT. NEENA ELEIZABETH VARGHESE
5. JOSE P.MATHEW, S/O. P.V.MATHEW
Vs
1. THE SENIOR MANAGER
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
4. THE CHIEF MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 1793 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 1st March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had approached this Court earlier challenging
the coercive steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the
machinery under the SARFAESI Act by filing W.P.(C)No.32558 of
2009, which culminated in Ext.P18 judgment. As per Ext. P18, the
petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20 lakhs towards a
portion of the outstanding liability, with liberty to the petitioner to
approach the Bank for extending some or other concessions as sought
for in the representations marked as Exts. P14 and P15 therein. The
respondent Bank was also directed to consider waiver of the amounts
to the possible extent and to intimate the petitioner about the
decision taken on such requests, also adding that the petitioner shall
be provided with a reasonable time for payment of the due amount,
so arrived in the settlement, if any.
2. Pursuant to Ext. P18 judgment, the matter was considered by
the respondent Bank, who issued Ext.P20, whereby the petitioner has
been directed to satisfy a sum of Rs.138.30 lakhs which is shown as
the outstanding liability, after giving concessions, to be satisfied by
way of ‘three’ installments. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
W.P.(C) No. 1793 OF 2010
2
respondent Bank has not acted in tune with the directions given by
this Court vide Ext.P18 and further that the eligible concessions have
not been extended. It is also stated that the action being pursued by
the Bank is only to harass the petitioner and the entire liability is
sought to be cleared within a period of just three months, submits
the learned Counsel.
3. The learned Counsel or the Bank submits with reference to
the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the outstanding
liability actually due from the petitioner is Rs.1,51,58,275.95/- and
after considering the matter in detail, the Bank decided to waive a
total sum of Rs.13,28,275.95/-. It is stated that the entire penal
interest and part of interest have been omitted, besides waiving the
expenses incurred on account of paper publication in respect of both
the loan accounts.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side,
this Court finds that the respondent Bank has substantially complied
with the directions given by this Court vide Ext. P18 and that the
liability has been scaled down to the possible extent as contended
from the part of the Bank. The petitioner, having not disputed the
computation of the figures , is liable to satisfy the said amount.
W.P.(C) No. 1793 OF 2010
3
5. After hearing the persuasive submission made by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit
the petitioner to clear the entire liability by way of ‘six’ installments,
the first of which shall be paid on or before 30.03.2010 to be followed
by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the
succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further recovery
proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any
default is made in effecting the installments as above, the respondents
will be at liberty to proceed with further steps to realize the entire
amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk