Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 181 (KER)

Lissy Sebastian v. State Bank of India

2014-02-26

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2014
Judgment 1. The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner, while the third petitioner is the guarantor to the two loan transactions availed by petitioners 1 and 2. In the course of steps for realisation of the due amounts, the Bank filed O.S. No.14/2010 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. With regard to one loan, there is no dispute and the petitioners submit that the said loan has been closed, availing the eligible benefits. Dispute is only with regard to the remaining loan. The amount due under the said loan transaction was sought to be settled by way of appropriate proceedings and a 'settlement award' was passed as borne by Ext.P2, which has been signed by all the parties concerned and also by the concerned lawyers appeared on either side. The said compromise award reads as follows: "Both the parties agreed to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.3,58,000/-(Rupees three lakhs fifty eight thousand only) on condition that Rs.20,000/- will be remitted on or before 11.07.2010, and the balance amount of Rs.3,38,000/-will be remitted on or before 31st October, 2010. In case, if the party fails to pay the amount as agreed, the plaintiff is entitled to realise the balance amount with interest at the rate of 10% for the balance amount from the date of default till realisation." 2. Admittedly there occurred default and the petitioners did not even effect the initial deposit of Rs.20,000/-on or before 11.07.2010 and the balance Rs.3,38,000/-on or before 31.10.2010. Several reasons are offered with regard to the non-performance of the commitment. In the meanwhile, the Bank issued Ext.P3 notice dated 25.01.2014 offering a One Time Settlement Scheme and the petitioners are desirous of settling the liability under the said Scheme. The grievance is with regard to the coercive steps taken by way of revenue recovery proceedings, as per Ext.P4. Though the first petitioner has approached the Bank submitting Ext.P5 representation to extend the benefit of OTS scheme, it has not yielded any positive result and hence the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel Sri.George Thomas (Mevada) appearing on behalf of the first respondent as well. 4. The first respondent has filed a statement referring to sequence of events pointing out that the suit was originally filed for a total sum of Rs.4,95,780.60 and admittedly, the same was settled as per Ext.P2. 3. Heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel Sri.George Thomas (Mevada) appearing on behalf of the first respondent as well. 4. The first respondent has filed a statement referring to sequence of events pointing out that the suit was originally filed for a total sum of Rs.4,95,780.60 and admittedly, the same was settled as per Ext.P2. But since the petitioners did not choose to satisfy the initial deposit of Rs.20,000/-nor has effected any subsequent payment, the settlement did not work out and as such, the Bank is entitled to recover the entire amount. It is also pointed out that the petitioners are not eligible to have the benefit of the particular One Time Settlement scheme, as the amount involved is more than Rs.3 lakhs and the same shall stand outside the purview of the Scheme as borne by Annexure-I communication dated 11.01.2014 issued by the authorities of the Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioners concedes with reference to the contents of the statement filed, that the petitioners have now realised that the petitioners are not entitled to have the benefit of the Scheme. But then, the contention is that the petitioners are liable to satisfy only the amount covered by Ext.P2 and nothing more. Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice refers to a total sum of Rs.7,92,828/-which has absolutely no rhyme or reason with regard to the figures mentioned in Ext.P2. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that merely for the reason that the petitioners have not satisfied the amount due under Ext.P2, the Bank is not justified in proceeding with steps under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the plaint amount. The issue which was pending consideration got conveyed into Ext.P2 'settlement award', which is as good as a compromise decree. It is settled law that a compromise decree is as good as any other decree and nobody can go behind the decree. The vested right of the Bank is to get Ext.P2 executed by way of appropriate proceedings, including by way of revenue recovery proceedings if they are justified on the basis of a notification issued under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, if any. However, it also cannot be lost sight of the fact that the issue was settled as per Ext.P2 as early as on 11.06.2010'. Despite the lapse of three years, no payment has been effected by the petitioners so far. However, it also cannot be lost sight of the fact that the issue was settled as per Ext.P2 as early as on 11.06.2010'. Despite the lapse of three years, no payment has been effected by the petitioners so far. As such, to what extent interference could be made, if at all any, is of course a matter for consideration of this Court. 6. After hearing the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are permitted to clear the liability under Ext.P2 on or before 31.03.2014, failing which it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps under Ext.P4 from the stage where it stands now. It is also made clear that no petition for further extension of time will be entertained under any circumstances. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. The actual amount strictly in terms of Ext.P2 shall be let known to the petitioners by the first respondent Bank within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of.