IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33241 of 2007(G)
1. M.K.KUNJU KANOTH, AGED 75 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. LILLY KUNJU, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.
Vs
1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. REGIONAL MANAGER,
3. SENIOR MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/03/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 33241 OF 2007 G
====================
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against the
Securitisation proceedings initiated by the Bank.
2. It is stated that benefit of One Time Settlement
Scheme was applied for by the petitioners and that was granted,
but however, as the petitioners did not make payment of the full
amount in terms of the scheme, the benefit was recalled.
Thereupon the Bank proceeded with the Securitisation
proceedings and possession of the mortgaged property was also
taken over. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed
mainly contending that in the matter of extending the benefit of
One Time Settlement Scheme, the Bank has violated the terms of
Ext.P13 guidelines on OTS scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of
India.
3. This contention of the petitioners is answered by the
WPC 33241/07
:2 :
respondent stating that the benefit that was extended to the
petitioners is not in terms of Ext.P13. The correctness of the
contention so raised by the Bank is evident from the terms of
Ext.P13 itself. A reading of Ext.P13 shows that the last date for
receipt of application in terms of Ext.P13 was specified as 31st of
March, 2006. Admittedly, in this case the benefit applied for and
granted was in 2007. If that be so, the benefit that is extended
is not the one that is provided for in Ext.P13 and that the
conditions of the OTS that were extended. Therefore, there is
nothing wrong with the action of the Bank in fixing the terms of
the OTS.
4. Though there is nothing on the merits of the
contentions raised, it is now pointed out that since coercive
action has been initiated against the property mortgaged by the
petitioners, if the petitioners are desirous of liquidating the
liability by paying the instalments, the petitioners may do so. In
order to enable the petitioners to clear the amount as above, I
feel the petitioners should be granted an instalment facility.
5. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioners shall clear the
WPC 33241/07
:3 :
amount that is due to the Bank in five equal monthly instalments,
first of which will be payable in the first week of April, 2008 and
the subsequent instalments will be payable in the first week of
every succeeding month. It is directed that subject to payment
as above, the Bank will defer proceedings initiated against them
and in case default is committed, it will be free to continue the
action that it has initiated.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.
Rp