IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37279 of 2009(D)
1. PRAVEEN, PYNADATHU AYYAMPILI HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DENA BANK, REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER & A
... Respondent
2. THE SENIOR MANAGER, DENA BANK,
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
For Respondent :SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :22/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 22nd January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s father had availed a financial
facility from the respondent Bank. But because of the
serious ailments he could not honour the commitment in
repaying the due amount and bid for farewell to this world.
The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent Bank and
requested the benefit of ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’ so
as to enable him to wipe off the entire liability. It is seen
from the admitted pleadings and proceedings, that the
Bank had granted the benefit of ‘OTS’ directing the
petitioner to satisfy a total sum of Rs.28 lakhs, to be paid
within two months. The said stipulation could not be
satisfied by the petitioner due to some or other reason and
the benefit of ‘OTS’ was withdrawn and the Bank
proceeded with further steps under the SARFEASI Act,
which are under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Bank, with reference to the counter affidavit filed, submits
W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009
2
that the claim of the petitioner for OTS has already been
considered and rejected. This issue is no more alive. More
so, there is no scheme for OTS as on date.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has taken earnest efforts to tap other
sources to generate funds and to clear the entire liability,
for which some breathing time is sought for.
4. It is also stated that the entire liability to the
Bank will be cleared on or before 31st of March, 2010 and
that the petitioner might be permitted to approach the
Bank for availing concessions to the possible extent.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the
Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to clear
the entire liability under the loan transaction on or before
the 31st of March, 2010. This will be without prejudice to
the right of the petitioner to approach the Bank for availing
the concessions, if any, which of course will be at the
hands of the respondent Bank to be considered and given
effect to the permissible limit.
W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009
3
Subject to the above, the coercive proceedings stated
as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is made
by the petitioner in honouring the commitment as above,
respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further
steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum,
from the stage where it stands now.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
ma
W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009
4
W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009
5
W.P (C) No.37279 of 2009
6