Sajid K M vs Branch Manager

Kerala High Court

Sajid K M vs Branch Manager on 21 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                         WP(C) NO. 17385 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

              SAJID K M
              AGED 42 YEARS
              S/O.MUHAMMED.K.M(LATE), SABEER MANZIL,
              PANAYAL.PO, BAKEL FORT VIA,
              KASARGOD, PIN - 671318

              BY ADVS.
              S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
              LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
              K.J.SUNIL
              FEMY M.ANTONY


RESPONDENTS:

     1        BRANCH MANAGER
              KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,
              PALLIKKARE BRANCH, PALLIKKARE P O,
              KASARGODE, PIN - 671316
     2        KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
              KANNUR REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO-35, KANNUR.
              REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
              PIN - 670001

              SRI.M.SASINDRAN-R1 & R2


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.17385 Of 2024
                               2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024 The petitioner, who has availed financial assistance from the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited, has approached this Court seeking to direct the 1 st respondent- Bank to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 request for settlement of the loan account in accordance with law.

2. From the pleadings, it appears that when the Bank issued e-auction notification, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier filing W.P.(C) No.34879 of 2023. This Court permitted the petitioner to make a proposal for One Time Settlement on or before 23.11.2023.

3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

4. It is evident from the arguments that the petitioner failed to make a One Time Settlement proposal pursuant to WP(C) No.17385 Of 2024 3 the directions contained in W.P.(C) No.34879 of 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner has made Ext.P3 request for One Time Settlement.

5. I find that if the petitioner is ready to make a One Time Settlement even at this stage, the respondents can consider the same in accordance with law.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P3 and take appropriate decision thereon, within a period of one month.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.17385 Of 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17385/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 18.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO-2 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO-

34879/2023 OF HONBLE HIGH COURT DATED 22.11.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT MADE BEFORE RESPONDENT NO-1 DATED 05.05.2024