IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14486 of 2009(E)
1. C.KRISHNA DAS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, JOINT REGISTRAR
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
4. PARAVOOR SNV REGIONAL CO-0P
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SIVARAJ
For Respondent :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 14486 OF 2009 (E)
=====================
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the
respondents to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme
by accepting Rs.3.5 lakhs in settlement of the liability.
2. Petitioner had availed of loan from the 4th respondent.
Default was committed and proceedings were initiated before the
Arbitrator. Award was passed enabling the 4th respondent to realise
its dues. Petitioner submits that subsequently, he took up the
matter before the Adalath and that a settlement was arrived at
between himself and the 4th respondent agreeing to liquidate the
liability by paying Rs.3.5 lakhs before 31/3/2009. According to him,
he could not raise the money in time and therefore, he moved
Ext.P4 before the Government for enlarging the time, which was
forwarded to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P5. Complaining that no
decision has been taken on Ext.P5, the writ petition is filed.
3. Standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has
obtained instructions in the matter. On instructions, it is stated that
in terms of the OTS that was in vogue till 31/3/2009, petitioner
ought to have paid an amount of Rs.4,24,345/- and that he did not
WPC 14486/09
:2 :
make such payment. It is stated that no agreement or settlement
has been arrived at before the Adalath as claimed by the petitioner
and as the OTS period also has expired on 31/3/2009, Bank is not in
a position to extend any concession to the petitioner at this distance
of time.
4. Learned Government Pleader also confirms that the
period of the OTS scheme expired on 31/3/2009 and subsequent to
that no scheme has been introduced.
5. It is thus obvious that the petitioner having not availed of
the benefit of OTS scheme by paying the amount on or before
31/3/2009, should now pay the amount in terms of the Arbitration
Award.
6. In so far as the settlement before the Adalath claimed by
the petitioner is concerned, nothing has been placed on record to
accept the contention especially in the light of the dispute raised by
the Bank in this behalf.
7. In view of the above, no relief can be claimed in this writ
petition.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp