Abdullah.T.P vs Branch Manager, State Bank Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15647 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
     TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 14894 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

1          ABDULLA T.P
           AGED 35 YEARS
           PROP.M/S.SANDAL WOOD INDUSTRIES, THENOOR HOUSE,
           MUDICKAL P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN:683547

           BY ADV SHIBU VARGHESE



RESPONDENTS:

1            BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUDICKAL,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
             PIN 683 547.


2            AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC,
             PEARL TOWER, VELLOORKUNNAM, MARKET PO,
             MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN
             686673.

             BY SRI.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR, SC.


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   27.07.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.14894 of 2021                2


                             JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner wants time to repay the entire debt till October 2021.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents

submitted that cash credit facility of Rs.20 lakhs was availed by the

petitioner and it was lapsed in the year 2018. By drawing my

attention to the judgment at Ext.P2, learned Standing Counsel

submits that while deciding W.P.(C) No.32307 of 2019 on

12.12.2019, this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit an

amount of Rs.3 lakhs within four weeks from the date of judgment

and this condition was not fulfilled by the petitioner. The petitioner

deposited only Rs.1.70 lakhs and that too on 09.05.2019 and

15.05.2019. It is further argued that the petitioner thereafter

showed willingness to go for One Time Settlement and he had to pay

an amount of Rs.18.75 lakhs by 22.12.2020 but he could not fulfill

that condition of OTS. The petitioner had paid only Rs.4 lakhs on

22.12.2020. With this, learned Standing Counsel submits that the

respondents are not willing to grant any further time to the

petitioner to repay the outstanding amount.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced. The

matter is purely contractual. Still this Court has shown indulgence

while deciding W.P.(C) No.32307 of 2019 (Ext.P2). The conditions

imposed on the petitioner while granting relief to him in the said writ

petition are not followed by the petitioner. Thereafter also the

respondent-Bank extended OTS facility to the petitioner which he

failed to avail. In this view of the matter, it is not seen that any

legal right of the petitioner are infringed by the respondents. To

grant time for settling the dues of the Bank is a matter exclusively in

the realm of the respondents and respondents are not willing to

show any indulgence in such contractual matter to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is devoid of merit

and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 DATED 05.10.2019. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) 32307 OF 2019 DATED 12.12.2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COUNTERFOIL SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.4,00,000/- ON 22.12.2020.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge smp