M SREENIVASA MALLAYA Vs. MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner had availed a credit facility scheme for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the first respondent, bank. Because of the business failure, there was no remittance. Therefore, the bank proceeded against the writ petitioner.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that there had been repeated remittances to the first respondent, bank, repaying the loan amount. The order dated 23.2.2005 of this Court reveal that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was remitted at that time. There was further direction on 18.3.2005 to remit another amount of Rs.1.2 lakhs and, thereafter, apply for One Time Settlement scheme.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner brought to my notice the Ext.P15 representation dated 15.2.2005, praying for One Time Settlement scheme. The details of the exact amount that had been paid to the first respondent, bank, is not produced with the writ petition. Therefore, I am not able to specifically pass an order. However, the records show that there was an attempt on the part of the writ petitioner to have an One Time Settlement scheme and avail the benefits, thereon.