HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.44617 of 2022
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ...to pass an order, or orders, direction or directions, or issue a writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the request of the petitioner for one time settlement of outstanding loan amount by exempting the interest and consequently declare the action of the respondents after forcing the petitioner for down payment of Rs.1,36,950/‐ two times for arriving one time settlement through letter addressed by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner vide No.AFC/MNCL/ACCNTS/2019‐20/858 dated.03.02.2020 and then not coming forward for the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India..."
2. Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after disposal of S.A.No.216 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner approached the respondents for one time settlement of the loan amount and by letter dated 03.02.2020, the 3rd respondent has asked the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,36,950/- and service charges of Rs.2,360/-, The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- as well as service charges of Rs.2,360/- on 07.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has not received any further communication from the respondents and the petitioner has been repeatedly requested them to consider the request of one time settlement. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has informed orally to the petitioner to deposit another amount of Rs.1,36,950/- as down payment 2 and petitioner paid said amount of Rs.1,36,950/- through cheque 13.08.2021 and on the same requested the respondents to consider for one time settlement. But, so far the respondents have not come up with one time settlement and they have not sent any reply. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have agreed for one time settlement and forcing him to pay Rs.1,36,950/- two times and they are not given any reply to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner need not pay the interest on the said amount. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondents to give facility of one time settlement to the petitioner and exempt the interest.
3. Sri M.Hamsa Raju, learned Standing Counsel, submits that one time settlement cannot be asked as a matter of right in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor & others vs. Meenal Agarwal and others (in Civil Appeal No.7411 of 2021). He submits that in the year 2019, as the petitioner insisted for one time settlement, the respondents have asked the petitioner to give postdated cheques and so far the petitioner has not come forward with the said cheques. He further 3 submits that if the petitioner comes forward with the said cheques and makes an application, the respondents will process the same as per the procedure. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner has failed to submit the requisite documents for processing his case for one time settlement.
4. Taking the submission of learned Standing Counsel into consideration, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit the relevant documents/cheques and make an application, as required, for one time settlement. On such submission, the respondents shall process the same in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application/cheques. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J January 18, 2023 mar