Kerala High Court
M Seena vs The Authorized Officer on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13017 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M SEENA
AGED 52 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF MADATHIL TIRE TREADING SITUATED AT G.M.
NIVAS, REGUNATHANPURAM, NEAR PALACHIRA, VARKALA 695
143.
BY ADVS.
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
M.KIRANLAL
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR
RESPONDENT:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
UNDER SECURITIZATION ACT, STATE BANK OF INDIAN, TRESSED
ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND, WEST MUSEUM GATE,
VIKAS BHAVANAN P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
BY ADV TOM K.THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13017 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides. The petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to pay the due of
Rs.6,87,800/- in monthly instalments.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of
lockdown imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner who
happens to be a transporter, could not make payment of the outstanding
loan in due time. There was no business and the petitioner opted for one
time settlement. It is argued that the benefit of one time settlement is
granted to the petitioner, but the petitioner could not pay the 3 rd
instalment and therefore, he seeks extension of time for paying the
balance amount as per the one time settlement.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance
on the statement submits that the petitioner was in arrears of loan
amounting to more than Rs.21.51 lakhs and in the one time settlement
scheme, he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,57,800/- as against
the said amount and that too in instalments. It is further averred by the
respondents that the petitioner could not pay the 3 rd instalment, and
therefore, as per the scheme, the period of 3 rd instalment was extended
upto 03.05.2021, but the petitioner failed to pay the same. The learned
WP(C) NO. 13017 OF 2021
counsel for the respondents have contended that the one time
settlement scheme is non-discriminatory as well as non-discretionary
and therefore, it does contain any further provision to extend the
amount of instalment.
To grant an instalment and to settle the loan by granting benefit of
one time settlement is the discretion of the creditor as per the scheme
floated by it. If the scheme is not providing for any such extension of
payment of 3rd instalment as seen from the statement of the
respondent, this Court would not be in a position to extend the time for
effecting payment of 3rd instalment by the petitioner. As such, there is no
question of issuing mandamus to the respondent. In this view of the
matter, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
Nsd SD/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 13017 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13017/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPROMISE OFFER LETTER ISSUED
TO ASSISTANT DEPUTY MANAGER OF SBI, SARB
BRANCH DATED 31/03/2021.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT BANK DATED 28/04/2021.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE LETTER FROM
RESPONDENT TO EXT. P2 DATED 28.04.2021.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT AS ON 07/06/2021.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
