Yankanna Yadav @ A. Venkanna vs State Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 810 Kant

                             1



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

           W.P.NO.200775/2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Yankanna Yadav @ A.Venkanna
S/o Mareppa Yadav,
Aged about 53 years,
Proprietor M/s A.Yankanna Yadav Filling Station,
R/a # 6-2-135/4, Near BRB College,
Timamapurpet, Raichur - 584 101.
                                             .... Petitioner
(By Sri Venkatesh Somareddi, Advocate)

AND:

1.   The State Bank of India,
     Asset Recovery Management Branch,
     Mysore Bank Building, BKG Complex,
     'A' Block, 2nd Floor, Aveneue Road,
     Bengaluru - 560 009.

2.  The State Bank of India,
    Mantralyam Road Branch,
    1-4-154/35, H.K.Bumba Nursing Home,
    Mantralyam Road, Raichur - 584 101.
    Represented by its Branch Manager.
                                       ... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate for R1;
    Sri S.A.Kumbar, Advocate for R2)
                                2



       This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the
endorsement/letter dated 24.02.2022 issued by the
respondent No.1/Bank to the petitioner vide Annexure-H,
rejecting the request of the petitioner to extend the OTS
period and receive the balance amount and consequently;
b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
directing respondents to consider the representation dated
24.02.2022 made by the petitioner vide Annexure-F and
consequently extend the OTS period for payment of
balance OTS amount for such reasonable time as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit.

      This petition coming on for dictating orders, this day,
the court made the following:-

                            ORDER

This writ petition is filed with a prayer to quash

Annexure-H, wherein the request of the petitioner to

extend the period of one time settlement scheme is

rejected.

2. The second prayer is to issue writ of

mandamus to the respondents to consider the

representation dated 24.02.2022 and to extend the period

of one time settlement to pay the balance amount due to

the respondents-Bank.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner who has borrowed

money from the State Bank of India, the second

respondent, has not paid the money due to the Bank and

the petitioner is a defaulter. His application seeking one

time settlement is rejected by the Bank by issuing

endorsement dated 24.02.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has

placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics

Pvt. Ltd., (AIR 2022 Supreme Court 5517).

5. In the aforementioned judgment the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held that the period stipulated under the

one time settlement scheme cannot be extended by the

Court.

6. Under the circumstances, no relief can be

granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE sn