IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 21293 OF 2022
PETITIONER
BINOY.M
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. MANIYAPPAN, BINOY BHAVAN, THALAYOLAPARMBU,
KOTTAYAM - 686 605.
BY ADV E.V.MOLY
RESPONDENT
STATE BANK OF INDIA
7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, PALARIVATTOM BY-
PASS JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM - 682 024. REPRESENTED
BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
BY ADV TOM K.THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.21293 of 2022 :2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022 The petitioner is before this Court seeking to allow him to renew/settle credit facility availed from the respondent- Bank, within a reasonable time either payable in instalments or in a lumpsum.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner availed an Overdraft Credit facility of ₹10 lakhs from the respondent- Bank. The limit was revised from time to time and in the year 2018, it was increased upto ₹48 lakhs.
3. The petitioner states that his business suffered considerable loss due to Covid-19 pandemic and the petitioner could not maintain the overdraft accounts. The respondent has now initiated coercive proceedings invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Ext.P2 Possession Notice has been issued invoking Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
W.P(C) No.21293 of 2022 :3:
4. The petitioner states that the petitioner did not deliberately commit default in making repayments and the default on the part of the petitioner was beyond the petitioner's control. If the petitioner is given reasonable time, he will be able to wipe off the liabilities. The petitioner intends to make a proposal for One Time Settlement in the matter.
5. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that the respondent has already approached the DRT by filing O.A. No.298 of 2022. The liability of the petitioner towards the Bank is Rs.56,44,756/- as on 25.05.2022. The petitioner is a persistent defaulter and no relief can be granted to the petitioner
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.
W.P(C) No.21293 of 2022 :4:
7. The petitioner was initially granted Overdraft facility upto an amount of ₹10 lakhs in the year 2016. it is discernible from the pleadings that the Overdraft facility was enhanced by the Bank upto ₹ 48 lakhs by 2018. In 2018 and subsequent years, floods and Covid 19 pandemic made an adverse impact on the business of the petitioner.
8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner makes an application for One Time Settlement of the matter, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 6 lakhs within 45 days. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall make a proposal for One Time Settlement within a period of two weeks. If the petitioner deposits ₹6 lakhs as directed above, the respondent shall consider the proposal of the petitioner and take a decision thereon. If the petitioner commits default in W.P(C) No.21293 of 2022 :5: making the payment or fails to make a proposal, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Payment of balance amount will be governed by the decision of the Bank on the One Time Settlement proposal to be made by the petitioner.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/04.07.2022 W.P(C) No.21293 of 2022 :6: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21293/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE RESPONDENT BANK.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 24.5.2022.