AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice K. Vinod Chandran
APPENDIX
PETITIONER''S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 :
True copy of the comunication dated 17/10/2003 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner.
EXT.P2 :
True copy of the notice dated 30/11/2006 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner .
EXT.P3 :
True copy of the representation dated 19/12/2006 submitted by the petitioner before the respondents.
EXT.P4 :
True copy of the notice dated 20/12/2006 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner .
EXT.P5 :
True copy of the representation dated 01/01/2007 submitted by the petitioner before the respondents.
RESPONDENTS'' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1(a) :
A true copy of the letter dated 08/01/2005
EXT.R1(b) :
A true copy of the ownership certificate with respect to the house building 7/459 a on the security property in punnapra south gramapanchayath issued in the name of the petitioner.
EXT.R1(c) :
A true copy of the letter datead 6/1/2005
EXT.R1(d) :
A true copy of the calculation statement of interest showing the actual dues.
The petitioner availed a loan from the respondent- bank in the year 1997 for the purpose of establishing a Small Scale Industrial Unit. Due to several extenuating circumstances, it is submitted that the unit could not be run profitably and hence there was default in the loan account. The respondent-bank moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal where a suggestion for One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) was made and after taking in to account the remittances made, the respondent-bank agreed to settle the claim, if the petitioner makes payment of Rs. 8,29,887.13. Giving credit for Rs. 3 lakhs already paid by the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 6,77,260.65 with interest at the rate of 10.50% p.a. from 17.10.2003 was certified as realizable from the petitioner by Ext.P8. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he did not comply with the compromise entered into with the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 notice issued by the bank u/s 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The representation made by the petitioner was also rejected by Ext.P4, which was also challenged in the above writ petition. When the matter came up for admission, this Court granted a stay on condition of the petitioner remitting Rs. 5 lakhs, which order was complied by the petitioner. Subsequently, on 2.3.2007, the interim order of stay granted was modified imposing a condition of deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs per month payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from March, 2007. The petitioner filed a review from the above order and the said condition was modified to payment of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The petitioner contends that as per Ext.P8, the amount due was Rs. 6,77,260.65 and the petitioner having remitted Rs. 5 lakhs as per the interim order dated 9.1.2007, what remains for payment is only Rs. 1,50,000/-, which the petitioner has paid in compliance of the order in R.P.No.382 of 2007 dated 11.4.2007. I do not think even this contention is correct because the balance due would be more than Rs. 1,77,260.65 as per Ext.P8 order and in any event future interest also would have to be taken into account. The purport of the order dated 11.4.2007 would necessarily be that the petitioner has to make the payments as directed by this Court, every month till the entire liability is realized.
Further, it is to be noticed that the contention of the petitioner that only Rs. 1,77,260.65 is due as per Ext.P8 order cannot at this point be countenanced. Admittedly, there was a compromise entered into by Ext.P7 and it is on the basis of that compromise, that notice of demand as per Ext.P8 is issued. On the petitioner defaulting to comply with the conditions of compromise entered in Ext.P7, Ext. P8 has no legs to stand on and the contention that the amounts due from the petitioner is only to the extent of that shown in Ext.P8 cannot, at all, be sustained. In such circumstances, for reason of the petitioner not complying with the order in R.P.No.382 of 2007 as also the writ petition being devoid of any merit, the same deserves to be dismissed.
However, considering the fact that the petitioner had made some payments in compliance of the directions issued by this Court and taking into consideration the pendency of this writ petition, it is directed that the respondent-bank shall within a month from today issue a statement of accounts to the petitioner showing the amounts due as on the date of such communication. The petitioner shall remit the entire dues as per the communication of the respondent-bank in 10 equal monthly installments starting from the 15th of the next month of the month of communication. If the petitioner complies with the said condition, the respondent-bank shall on payment of the 10 installments, issue a further statement regarding the interest payable in the 10 months which shall also be satisfied by the petitioner on the 15th of the next succeeding month. If the petitioner commits default in payment of any one installment, the respondent-bank shall be entitled to take appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the entire amounts. On the petitioner complying regularly with the above order, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance and intimation of satisfaction of the entire loan shall be issued as and when it is satisfied. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.