Binoy.M vs State Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 8228 Ker

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 21293 OF 2022
PETITIONER

            BINOY.M
            AGED 46 YEARS
            S/O. MANIYAPPAN, BINOY BHAVAN, THALAYOLAPARMBU,
            KOTTAYAM - 686 605.
            BY ADV E.V.MOLY


RESPONDENT

            STATE BANK OF INDIA
            7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, PALARIVATTOM BY-
            PASS JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM - 682 024. REPRESENTED
            BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
            BY ADV TOM K.THOMAS


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   01.07.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No.21293 of 2022         :2:




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to allow him

to renew/settle credit facility availed from the respondent-

Bank, within a reasonable time either payable in instalments

or in a lumpsum.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner availed an

Overdraft Credit facility of ₹10 lakhs from the respondent-

Bank. The limit was revised from time to time and in the year

2018, it was increased upto ₹48 lakhs.

3. The petitioner states that his business suffered

considerable loss due to Covid-19 pandemic and the

petitioner could not maintain the overdraft accounts. The

respondent has now initiated coercive proceedings invoking

the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Ext.P2 Possession

Notice has been issued invoking Rule 8(1) of the Security

Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

4. The petitioner states that the petitioner did not

deliberately commit default in making repayments and the

default on the part of the petitioner was beyond the

petitioner's control. If the petitioner is given reasonable time,

he will be able to wipe off the liabilities. The petitioner intends

to make a proposal for One Time Settlement in the matter.

5. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on

behalf of the respondent and resisted the writ petition. The

Standing Counsel controverted all the material allegations

made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that

the respondent has already approached the DRT by filing

O.A. No.298 of 2022. The liability of the petitioner towards

the Bank is Rs.56,44,756/- as on 25.05.2022. The petitioner

is a persistent defaulter and no relief can be granted to the

petitioner

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondent.

7. The petitioner was initially granted Overdraft facility

upto an amount of ₹10 lakhs in the year 2016. it is

discernible from the pleadings that the Overdraft facility was

enhanced by the Bank upto ₹ 48 lakhs by 2018. In 2018 and

subsequent years, floods and Covid 19 pandemic made an

adverse impact on the business of the petitioner.

8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that

if the petitioner makes an application for One Time

Settlement of the matter, the respondent shall consider the

same in accordance with law.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 6 lakhs within 45 days. In

the meanwhile, the petitioner shall make a proposal for One

Time Settlement within a period of two weeks. If the

petitioner deposits ₹6 lakhs as directed above, the

respondent shall consider the proposal of the petitioner and

take a decision thereon. If the petitioner commits default in

making the payment or fails to make a proposal, the

respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner

in accordance with law. Payment of balance amount will be

governed by the decision of the Bank on the One Time

Settlement proposal to be made by the petitioner.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/04.07.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21293/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE RESPONDENT BANK.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 24.5.2022.