Mathewkutty George vs State Bank Of India Sbi
2022 Latest Caselaw 8618 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 20697 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

          MATHEWKUTTY GEORGE,AGED 70 YEARS
          CANNAN BUNGALOW, MADATHIPARAMBIL ROAD,
          NEAR ERNAKULAM MEDICAL CENTRE,
          VENNALA P.O, KOCHI 682 028.
          BY ADVS.
          V.R.GOPU
          URMILA.M.G
          ADIL.M.H
          J.NARAYANA PILLAI


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE BANK OF INDIA SBI,
          PANAMPILLY NAGAR BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 036,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
    2     THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
          SBI ASSET MANAGEMENT DIVISION, SBT BHAVAN, SBT AVENUE,
          PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682 036.
          BY ADV S.EASWARAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20697 OF 2022              2



                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, a seeking

direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P7 request

made by the petitioner for One Time Settlement.

2. When this matter is taken up for consideration today,

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Bank of

India submits that an item of property belonging to the

petitioner has already sold by the bank for

Rs.10,00,10,000/- (Rupees Ten Crors and ten thousand

only). It is submitted that the entire liability of the

petitioner which stood at Rs.9,60,67,609/- (Rupees Nine

cores sixty lakhs sixty seven thousand six hundred and nine

only) will be cleared from out of the sale proceeds and there

is no scope for consideration of Ext.P7, at this stage.

Taking into account the submission made by the

learned Standing Counsel, I am of the opinion that the

petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ

petition. However, it is always open to the petitioner to

approach the higher authorities of the bank or to negotiate

with the auction purchaser to retain the property sold in

auction by the bank.

The writ petition is dismissed with the above

observation.

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20697/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.

34100/2018 DATED 9.11.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT REQUEST SUBMITTTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2020.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.5.2022.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. ARMB/JV/141 DATED 18.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA PAPER DATED 15.05.2022. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO.

16458/2022 DATED 27.05.2022 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 21.06.2022 FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.