IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 25594 of 2006(V)
1. M.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.SAIDHOOTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. WYNAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
3. P.K.SAINUDHIN, S/O.D.M.MUHAMMAD KOYA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
Dated :05/01/2007
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.
-------------------
W.P.(C). 25594/2006
--------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
The third respondent availed a loan from the
second respondent, bank. The writ petitioner was a
guarantor. But the third respondent defaulted the
payment of loan. The petitioner complaints that he also
disposed of immovable properties because of which, the
petitioner is being proceeded against by the respondents 1
and 2. It is, therefore, prayed that the liabilities, if any,
may be re-fixed and an One Time Settlement Scheme may
be allowed to be availed off by the petitioner, so that he
could save the coercive action, being initiated by the
respondents 1 and 2.
2. I heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the counsel
for the writ petitioner. A copy of the resolution, passed by
the second respondent, bank, was produced by the counsel
which show that an application of the writ petitioner, as
W.P.(C).25594/2006
2
guarantor, had been considered. The loan transaction
had been sought to be disposed of, after including the
same under an One Time Settlement scheme. It is also
further resolved that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- already
remitted, would be adjusted and the balance should be
allowed to be remitted in ten monthly instalments.
3. The counsel for the writ petitioner submits
that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- had also been remitted,
apart from Rs.5,00,000/-, remitted by the writ petitioner.
4. After hearing the submissions made by either
side, I direct the second respondent, bank, to extend the
facilities and benefits of One Time Settlement to the writ
petitioner and fix the amount due to the bank. On
deducting the amount, so far remitted by him, the
balance amount shall be allowed to be remitted in ten
equal monthly instalments. Orders to this effect shall
be passed within one month from today. On receipt of
such order, the writ petitioner shall make the payments,
as directed in the order of the second respondent.
5. In the above facts situation, all coercive
W.P.(C).25594/2006
3
action taken against the writ petitioner, shall stand
stayed.
6. However, I make it clear that if the petitioner
fails to make payments as per the order of the second
respondent, in compliance of the directions contained in
this judgment, the second respondent will be free to
proceed against the writ petitioner, according to the law.
The writ petition is closed as above.
J.M.JAMES
JUDGE
mrcs