Kerala High Court
Aleyamma George vs State Bank Of India on 13 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10654 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ALEYAMMA GEORGE
VICTORY PARK PROPERTIES, CRA-197,
PALARIVATTOM P.O, KOCHI 682 025
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
SRI.N.K.KARNIS
SRI.VINAY KUMAR VARMA
SRI.S.SHYAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, STATE BANK BHAVAN,
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021
2 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, R.S BUILDINGS,
M.G ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011
BY ADV S.EASWARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON 17.09.2021 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.10654/21 -:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.10654 of 2021
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks for a direction to command the 2 nd
respondent to accept the offer of the petitioner made through
Ext.P3 as a valid acceptance to Ext.P1 scheme for one time
settlement and permit the petitioner to clear her loan liability.
2. Petitioner claims to have availed a loan of
Rs.1,25,00,000/- in the year 2014 for construction of a
residential complex for the aged and infirm persons. According
to the petitioner, though she had repaid more than
Rs.72,00,000/-, due to reasons beyond her control, the balance
could not be paid and hence respondents initiated recovery
proceedings. It is pleaded in the writ petition that though the
bank had offered a one time settlement scheme as per Ext.P1 on
20.10.2020, since petitioner was stranded in United States of
America due to Covid-19 restrictions, she could not reply on
time. Thereafter when she made a request for availing the one
time settlement scheme 'granted' to the petitioner, the bank
expressed its disinclination. Subsequently after repeated
promptings, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P2 letter dated
20.1.2021, directed the petitioner to submit a better offer for a
suitable compromise.
3. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P2, petitioner submitted
Ext.P3 application seeking the benefit of the offer of one time
settlement, as reflected in Ext.P1. It is the case of the petitioner
that, even though petitioner expressed her willingness through
Ext.P3 to abide by the terms of the offer in Ext.P1, without
responding to the said request of the petitioner, respondents
initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(for short 'the Act') by issuing Ext.P4 notice. She claims that the
petitioner is being subjected to hostile discrimination and hostile
treatment by the respondents.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents
stating that the SBI OTS Scheme 2020 is a non statutory
scheme intended to give benefits to NPA accounts as per the
terms and conditions stipulated therein. It was asserted that the
scheme was non-discretionary and non-discriminatory and that
the respondents cannot exclude or excuse the delay in filing the
response to the offer of OTS. It was further pleaded that there
is no statutory right for the petitioner to seek a direction to
settle the accounts and hence the invocation of writ jurisdiction
of this Court was not warranted.
5. Respondents further stated that the petitioner cannot
claim the benefit of the one time settlement scheme put forth
through Ext.P1 since, petitioner had failed to comply with the
terms and conditions contained therein. It was also stated that
even though the offer of one time settlement was served upon
the petitioner through registered post as well as through e-mail,
a reply was received from the registered mail of the petitioner,
which is produced as Ext.R2(a), wherein, instead of accepting
the proposal of the bank, a counter offer was made by
petitioner's son. It was reiterated that the willingness required
under Ext.P1 was an unconditional consent through a response
containing deposit of 5% of the defaulted amount to initiate
processing the application for one time settlement and thereafter
a further deposit of 10% within 30 days. Since petitioner had
not given a proper response, the benefit of the scheme could not
be given to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is thus
not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for.
6. I heard Senior Advocate N.Sukumaran duly instructed
by Adv.S.Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Adv.S.Easwaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
bank.
7. A perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the bank had come out
with the scheme for one time settlement and the petitioner was
found to be eligible for the settlement scheme on certain
conditions. The conditions stipulated that the one time
settlement amount will be Rs.87,13,768.50, the application for
one time settlement will be processed only on deposit of a
minimum of 5% of the one time settlement amount, a further
10% to be deposited as first instalment within 30 days from the
date of sanction of one time settlement, failing which the
sanction will be rendered infructuous. Further conditions were
also stipulated in Ext.P1 and the same is not being referred to as
admittedly, petitioner had not deposited even the minimum
amount required for processing the application.
8. In this context, it is relevant to mention that though
petitioner contended that she was abroad after receipt of Ext.P1
and she could not respond to Ext.P1, it is seen from Ext.R2(a)
that an e-mail was sent from the registered e-mail ID of the
petitioner with a counter offer to Ext.P1. The reply e-mail,
though send by petitioner's son, it clearly indicates that the offer
of the respondents was not acceptable. It is clearly stated in
Ext.R2(b) e-mail dated 22.11.2020 sent from the registered mail
ID of the petitioner that a counter offer is proposed to
renegotiate the one time settlement scheduled. Though
petitioner has a case that the said counter offer was made by
the petitioner's son, it cannot be assumed for a moment that the
said offer was made without the knowledge of the petitioner,
especially since the e-mail was generated through the registered
mail given by the petitioner herself to the bank. In such a view
of the matter, this Court finds that the SBI OTS Scheme 2020
offered to the petitioner by Ext.P1 was not accepted by the
petitioner. Consequently petitioner cannot under any
circumstances bind the respondent bank to the proposal offered
through Ext.P1.
9. Though the aforesaid one time settlement scheme 2020
cannot be availed by the petitioner on account of her own fault,
the same does not stand in the way of the bank considering any
fresh proposal for settlement of the liability of the petitioner. As
a matter of fact, it is evident from Ext.P2 that the bank had
expressed its willingness to consider a suitable compromise offer
and even requested the petitioner to suggest one acceptable to
the bank. Instead of providing a suitable proposal as sought for
in Ext.P2, petitioner attempted to linger around the offer made
in Ext.P1 scheme, which is evident from the terms in Ext.P3.
10. Adv.S.Easwaran during the course of the hearing
submitted that having regard to the age of the petitioner and the
inclination expressed by her through Senior Counsel
Adv.N.Sukumaran, to settle the disputes once and for all, the
bank is willing to consider any reasonable proposal for
settlement. Of course, the proposal cannot be in the terms
offered in Ext.P1. It was also submitted that if the petitioner
submits a fresh proposal within a reasonable time, the bank is
willing to consider the same in all circumstances.
11. In view of the above submission, though I find that
petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed for in the writ
petition, I dispose of this writ petition, giving an opportunity to
the petitioner to approach respondents 1 and 2 with an
appropriate proposal for settlement of the loan liability.
Needless to mention, if the petitioner approaches the
respondents with a suitable proposal for settlement of her
liability within two weeks from today, the respondents shall
consider the same with all earnestness and dispose of the said
application within an outer time limit of one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of such an application.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10654/2021
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (OTS)
DATED 20-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20-01-2021 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED
03-02-2021 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17-04-2021
ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN SUO MOTO WPC NO. 3/2020
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 08-03-2021 OF
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SUO MOTO
WPC NO.3/2020
RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
3.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
3.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S SON
EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.2.2019
IN WP 3259 OF 2019
