T.R. VINAYAKUMAR Vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against the petitioner's property, which, admittedly, was mortgaged in favour of the 1st respondent for the loans availed of by respondents 2 to 4. The 2nd respondent is said to be a firm, of which the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are partners. The petitioner is alleged to have only 10% share in the said firm. The loans availed from the 2nd respondent are, one Overdraft facility on behalf of the 2nd respondent and two vehicle loans, one in the name of the 3rd respondent and the other in the name of the 4th respondent. The petitioner had mortgaged his property as security for the Overdraft facility and the said two vehicle loans. The petitioner, even during the pendency of the writ petition, is stated to have paid substantial amounts to the respondent -Bank. The balance amount is more than Rs.55,00,000/ - [Rupees fifty five lakhs] and the petitioner undertakes to settle the entire loan accounts in a time bound manner. The petitioner also prays that the One Time Settlement [OTS] proposal made, also be considered by the respondent -Bank. WP[C].No.8247 of 2014 - 2 -

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Bank, however, would submit that the proposal for OTS submitted as of today is not viable in the opinion of the respondent -Bank. However, the learned counsel would also submit that if a viable proposal is made, the Bank would definitely consider it. However, since the sale of the property is posted on 26.08.2014, the learned counsel would contend that no interdiction of the sale be made without a condition of deposit of substantial amount.