High Court Kerala High Court

Kolikkal Granite Industries vs The Branch Manager on 18 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Kolikkal Granite Industries vs The Branch Manager on 18 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30356 of 2009(L)


1. KOLIKKAL GRANITE INDUSTRIES,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.V.GEORGE

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :18/02/2010

 O R D E R
                P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                        -------------------------
                    W.P (C) No.30356 of 2009
                       --------------------------
             Dated this the 18th February, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court mainly

seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the

3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P3 representation requesting for the benefit of One

Time Settlement Scheme, within a specified time.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a statement

dated 4.11.2009 stating that even though the Bank was

prepared to extend the benefit to the permissible limit, the

amount offered by the petitioner was very low and not

acceptable to the Bank. It is stated that the respondents

had instructed the petitioner to improve their offer as per

Annexure-1 letter dated 5.10.2009, but no competitive

proposal has been submitted from the part of the

petitioner. It is also stated that the outstanding liability as

on the date of statement was around Rs.48 lakhs.

3. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this

Court, a total sum of Rs.7 lakhs has already been paid by

the petitioner, submits the learned counsel. This Court

W.P (C) No.30356 of 2009
2

also directed the Bank to file an additional affidavit as to the

actual facts and figures, pursuant to which, the affidavit

dated 17.2.2010 has been filed, also producing Annexure R2

(a) letter dated 19.01.2010 issued by the Bank to the

petitioner. With reference to the contents of the said

affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank

submits that the amount of Rs.7 lakhs already paid by the

petitioner has been duly credited and the balance amount

was nearly Rs.45.02 lakhs. It is also stated in paragraph 4 of

the said affidavit that the Bank is ready and willing to settle

the accounts on accepting a sum of Rs.42.19 lakhs in full and

final settlement of the loan accounts.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the offer now made by the Bank is not in confirmity with the

actual outstanding. But this Court does not find any force in

the said submission and no writ of mandamus can be issued

with regard to the vested rights and interests of the parties,

more so, when the amount was borrowed under a contract.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank

submits that the above amount of Rs.42.19 lakhs is to be

satisfied by the petitioner on before the 31st March, 2010.

W.P (C) No.30356 of 2009
3

However, considering the entire aspects involved, this Court

find it fit and proper that the loan account could be settled on

payment of Rs.42.19 lakhs in full and final settlement of the

loan accounts . The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of

Rs.10 lakhs within one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment and the balance amount shall be

cleared by way of ‘four’ equal monthly instalments, the first

of which shall be effected on or before 15.4.2010, to be

followed by the subsequent instalments to be effected on or

before the 15th of the succeeding months.

6. Subject to the above, all further coercive steps

pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also

made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner

in satisfying the amount as above, the respondents will be at

liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the

entire amount in a lump sum.

Writ Petition is disposed of, as above.

P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ma

W.P (C) No.30356 of 2009
4

W.P (C) No.30356 of 2009
5