M GIRIJA Vs. CHIEF MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court , seeking for a direction to be issued to the respondent Bank, to extend the benefit of 'One Time Settlement' Scheme. There is another prayer to enable the petitioner to clear the liability by way of installments.

(2.) THE sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the brother of the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs. 13. 5 lakhs from the respondent Bank, creating security interest over the property belonging to the brother and also that of the petitioner and on the strength of the guarantee given by the others concerned, who form the members of the family. Since the repayment was not effected on time, the Bank proceeded with steps for recovery, when the mother and brother of the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3961 of 2011, wherein interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed as per Ext. P1 judgment dated 17.03.2011, holding that, if the petitioners were aggrieved in any manner, their remedy was to avail the statutory remedy and not under Article 226.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , there occurred default in clearing the liability as above, as the parties chose to remit only a sum of Rupees Two lakhs. This led to further proceedings at the instance of the Bank, when another brother of the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 1408 of 2012, which came to be dismissed as not pressed, as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 31.05.2012. Because of the continuing default, the Bank filed a petition under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tthiruvananthapuram, leading to Ext. P4 order dated 29.06.2012 so as to cause delivery on 10.08.2012 and for report on 16.08.2012. Now, it is the turn of the petitioner, who was behind the curtain so far, repeating the very same plea as in the earlier rounds of litigations, and pray for the benefit of installments.