Kerala High Court
Sudarsan K.R vs The Regional Manager, Canara Bank on 4 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11559 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 SUDARSAN K.R.,
AGED 53 YEARS,
KOCHUMALAYIL HOUSE,
S/O. RAGHAVAN, MINALLOOR P.O.,
M.G.KAVU, THRISSUR.
2 GEETHA SUDARSANAN,
W/O. SUDARSANAN, KOCHUMALAYIL HOUSE,
MINALLOOR P.O.,
MUNDATHIKODE, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
K.MOHANAKANNAN
T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
CANARA BANK,
REGIONAL OFFICE, AABA PLAZA,
KOORKANCHERY, TRICHUR-680007.
2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOORKANCHERY, TRICHUR-680007.
3 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
CANARA BANK, SME BRANCH,
SREE AYYAPPA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,
ATHANI, THRISSUR-683585.
4 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
CANARA BANK,
REGIONAL OFFICE, TRICHUR-683585.
BY SMT. PARVATHY KOTTOOL @ MENON AND PAI, SC
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.11559/2021
:2 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2021
In this writ petition, the petitioners seek to direct the
respondent-Bank to grant sufficient time to them for settling
the liabilities covered by Exts.P4 and P5 as requested in
Ext.P7 and to direct that recovery proceedings may be
deferred until then.
2. The 1st petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Dilmax
Traders. The petitioners availed a cash credit facility of
`1,10,000/- on 04.07.2014. The property of the petitioners
was mortgaged as a security. The cash credit facility was
availed for the business of the petitioners. The business did
not flourish as expected and consequently the repayment was
defaulted. The respondent-Bank issued a notice under
Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the petitioners in the
year 2016 demanding a sum of `1,12,90,936.50.
WP(C) No.11559/2021
3. The petitioners approached the Bank and sought
time to regularise the loan and to discharge their liability
towards overdue amounts. Thereupon, the Bank issued a
notice to the petitioners on 08.12.2016 granting the petitioners
14 days time for remitting the overdue amount of `6,72,091/-.
The petitioners state that subsequently the petitioners paid
₹4,90,499/- and accordingly the facility was renewed.
4. Later, the Bank filed S.A. Nos.148/2018 and
79/2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In W.P.(C)
No.6743/2019, this Court granted 15 equal monthly
instalments for paying the amount commencing from
30.04.2019. The total amount outstanding at that time was
`1,44,48,519/-. The petitioners remitted the first installment of
`13 lakhs and another `2 lakhs, totalling `15 lakhs. The
petitioners had earlier remitted `4 lakhs. Thus, the petitioners
have remitted `19 lakhs.
5. The petitioners moved an application for OTS
benefits as per representation dated 12.03.2021. Finally, OTS
was sanctioned for `70 lakhs. The petitioners remitted `3
WP(C) No.11559/2021
lakhs. The petitioners were granted time up to 31.05.2021 to
pay the balance of `67 lakhs. The petitioners state that in
view of the Covid-19 pandemic issues, the buyer who came
forward to buy the land of the petitioners sought further time
for making payment. The petitioners therefore submitted
Exts.P6 and P7 representations seeking further time. The
petitioners seeks appropriate orders directing the Bank to
enlarge time for compliance of the conditions of OTS.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
submitted that the petitioners have defaulted in repayment of
advances. The default existed for the last more than five
years. The petitioners were given repeated opportunities to
clear the dues. However, the petitioners did not do so. Any
OTS arrangement will be subject to the conditions as to
deadlines for payment. The petitioners cannot enter into an
OTS arrangement and subsequently bargain for more time for
repayment.
WP(C) No.11559/2021
8. It is beyond doubt that a person who has entered
into a one-time settlement arrangement with a Bank has to
adhere to the conditions of settlement including date/s of
repayment agreed to or sanctioned under the OTS. But, the
petitioners would state that they are aware of the legal
limitations and are seeking only a compassionate approach
from the Bank authorities taking into consideration the present
situation arising due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the
consequential market situation and financial constraints.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ
petition is disposed of directing the competent among
respondents 1 and 3 to consider Ext.P7 representation
submitted by the petitioners and take a decision thereon within
a period of two weeks. Coercive proceedings against the
petitioners by the Bank, if any, shall be deferred till a decision
is taken on Ext.P7.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/08.06.2021
WP(C) No.11559/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C)No.11559/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT
PETITION NO.34153/2017 DATED
13.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 6743/2019 DATED 12.3.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
12.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE BANK.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OTS SANCTIONED ORDER
DATED 18.3.2021.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
15.4.2021 ALONG WITH THE REVISED OTS
PROPOSAL DATED 8.4.2021.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 20.4.2021.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.5.2021.
SR
