Marson Cherian vs M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd

Kerala High Court

Marson Cherian vs M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd on 23 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                         WP(C) NO. 18630 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

              MARSON CHERIAN
              AGED 63 YEARS
              S/O. CHERIAN, VENNATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE',
              CHENGALUR ROAD, NEAR HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL,
              OLLUR P.O. , THRISSUR, PROPRIETOR,
              M/S. TUBE LINKS,1/449, S.N.PURAM,
              CHENGALUR - PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
              PIN - 680306

              BY ADVS.
              R.MURALEEDHARAN
              DR.ANIES GEORGE


RESPONDENTS:

     1        M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
              OLLUR BRANCH, D.NO.XI/758, RAMUS SHOPPING MALL,
              MAIN ROAD, PANAMKUTTICHIRA, OLLUR P.O. ,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT,
              REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 680306
     2        AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER
              SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. , REGIONAL OFFICE,
              THRISSUR, PLATINUM JUBILEE BUILDING,
              CIVIL LANE, AYYANTHOLE,
              THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

              SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE-R1 & R2


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.18630 Of 2024
                                  2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024 The petitioner, who has availed financial assistance from the South Indian Bank and against whom coercive proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are pending, has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P1 notice issued under Sec.13(2) and pursuant to Ext.P-9 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner to dispossess the properties from petitioners;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, directing to extend the time limit given to discharge the debts under One Time Settlement Scheme upto September 2024 as the time granted was too short considering the amount directed to remit;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wit, order or direction to the respondents, directing the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to pay off the entire debts remains as outstanding in the Cash Credit Loans and the overdue amount in the term loan account in twenty five equal monthly installments;"

WP(C) No.18630 Of 2024 3

2. In effect, what the petitioner seeks is change of conditions of One Time Settlement enlarging the time for paying the offered One Time Settlement amount.

3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel pointed out that the One Time Settlement proposal has already been cancelled by the Bank as is evident from Ext.P11 and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court cannot interfere in the matter invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Private Limited [(2023) 1 SCC 540] that the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot unilaterally alter the terms of One Time Settlement WP(C) No.18630 Of 2024 4 agreement entered into between Bank and their customers.

6. If the petitioner seeks any re-arrangement in the matter of repayment, the petitioner has to approach the Bank authorities.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the respondents, if the petitioner is so advised, for any settlement / fresh One Time Settlement proposal in the matter.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.18630 Of 2024 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18630/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.13(2) OF THE ACT. BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.01.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TRANSACTION DETAILS OBTAINED FROM THE BANK, DATED 05.08.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED UNDER RULE 8( 1) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DT.20.04.2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING ONE TIME SETTLEMENT, DT.14.11.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2023 IN WP(C) NO.43325/2023 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05.01.2024 SERVED TO THE PETITIONERS REJECTING EXT.P-5 APPLICATION Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION FOR SALE OF PROPERTY BY PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS DATED 06.10.2023 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION FOR SALE OF PROPERTY BY PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS DATED 08.01.2024 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADV. COMMISSIONER TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF PROPERTIES DATED 30.11.2023 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO. 2378 0F 2024 DATED 23.01.2024 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.04.2024.