Taxi Drivers Co-Operative … vs The Chief Manager on 7 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31676 of 2009(D)


1. TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL

3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :07/01/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No. 31676 OF 2009
              .........................................................................
                      Dated this the 7th January , 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a

direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of ‘OTS’ and

settle the loan account on remitting Rs.10 lakhs in respect of

the loan transactions

2. The factual position is such that a loan of Rs.17.4. lakhs

was availed by the petitioner from the respondents in the year

2001, but was not much interested to have it repaid on time,

under which circumstance, the amount due to the respondent

Bank got mounted up. In the meanwhile, the bus purchased by

the petitioner utilizing the loan amount also happened to be

seized and sold, realizing a sum of Rs 10 lakhs and the same was

given credit to, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the

respondent, with specific reference to the statement filed in the

matter. The learned counsel further submits that as on

W.P.(C) No. 31676 OF 2009

2

31.10.2009, the outstanding liability crossed Rs.29 lakhs with

further interest and cost, as still due. It is also brought to the

notice of this Court, referring to the contents of paragraph No.6

of the statement, that the revised offer made by the petitioner to

have the benefit of OTS was 17.5 lakhs (as put forth on

08.09.2009), whereupon, the Branch office conveyed it to the

petitioner that the case could be forwarded to the Head Office

only if the petitioner agreed to satisfy a minimum sum of Rs.

23.56 lakhs. It is also stated therein that the petitioner did not

choose to respond to the letter dated 14.09.2009. It has been

further stated that the respondent Corporation is ready and

willing to settle the account even at this stage, if the petitioner

approaches the Corporation with a ‘reasonable offer’ within the

approved norms under the Compromise Settlement Scheme.

3. In response to the letter dated 14.09.2009, the

petitioner has made a revised offer to an extent of ‘Rs.12 lakhs’,

which is an instance of abusing the process and the steps taken

by the respondents, submits the learned Counsel for the

respondents, with specific reference to the earlier proposal as

W.P.(C) No. 31676 OF 2009

3

revised and offered by the petitioner Society on 08.09.2009

agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 17.5 lakhs.

4. In view of the above undisputed facts and figures, this

Court does not find it necessary to invoke the discretionary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so as

to extend any relief to the petitioner .

The Writ Petition fails, interference is declined and it is

dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that this will not bar the

way of the petitioner in approaching the respondents for

appropriate reliefs, to the extent they are agreeable.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk