IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6006 of 2010(A)
1. M.C.SAIDALIKUTTY HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.DILIP
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :05/08/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 6006 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the guarantor to a cash credit facility availed by
his son in the year 1997 from the first respondent. Since, the
repayments were not effected on time, the Bank was constrained to
approach the DRT, by filing O.A. 188 of 2002, wherein final order has
been passed, as borne by Ext. R1 (a), produced along with the counter
affidavit of the first respondent, enabling the Bank to recover the
amount due with interest as specified therein. The petitioner has
approached this Court, seeking for the maximum indulgence and to
provide the benefit of ‘OTS’, pointing out the various circumstances,
including the treatment being undergone by the petitioner for
‘carcinoma’.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court
on 24.2.2010, the confirmation of sale scheduled to be conducted was
intercepted, subject to further orders to be obtained from this Court.
Both the learned counsel submits that, the sale did not took place. The
various averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition have been
W.P. (C) No. 6006 of 2010
: 2 :
chosen to be controverted from the part of the Bank, in their counter
affidavit.
3. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank, during
the course of hearing, brought to the notice of this Court that, after filing
the above Writ Petition, the request of the petitioner to extend the
benefit of ‘OTS’ was considered and giving maximum deduction, the
loan account was agreed to be settled and closed, on condition that, the
petitioner satisfied a total sum of Rs. 6.5 lakhs, subject to further
condition that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was deposited immediately on receipt
of the notice issued in this regard. Though the notice was issued on
19.6.2010, compliance is still to be made by the petitioner and the
balance liability is to be cleared on or before 19.9.2010.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
petitioner might be given one week’s time to satisfy the initial deposit
and that he will deposit the entire amount under the ‘OTS Scheme’ on
or before the stipulated date.
5. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed to effect
the initial deposit of Rs. 1 lakh within one week from the date of receipt
of a copy of the judgment and the balance, as agreed, shall be
deposited on or before 19.9.2010. Subject to this, the recovery
proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be
W.P. (C) No. 6006 of 2010
: 3 :
kept in abeyance, for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default
is committed by the petitioner in effecting the payments as above, the
respondents will be liberty to proceed with further steps, for realization
of the entire amount in lump sum.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd