Mr.Johny Thomas vs The South Indian Bank Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 2872 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                       &

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

        WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943

                             WA NO. 252 OF 2022

 JUDGMENT DATED 08.02.2022 IN WP(C) 20810/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

             MR.JOHNY THOMAS,
             AGED 60 YEARS
             S/O THOMAS, VELLAPPANAYIL HOUSE,
             KOORALI P.O., ELANGULAM,
             PONKUNNAM,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 522.
             BY ADVS.
             P.MARTIN JOSE
             P.PRIJITH
             THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
             AJAY BEN JOSE
             MANJUNATH MENON
             SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
             R.GITHESH
             ANNA LINDA V.J
             S.SREEKUMAR(SR)

RESPONDENT/S:

    1        THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
             REGIONAL OFFICE,
             REGENCY SQUARE,
             KK ROAD, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,
             DRT CELL, MRS. JILU HANNAAH EAPEN., PIN - 686 002.
    2        KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD.,
             BEVCO TOWER,
             VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
             TRIVANDRUM - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
             DIRECTOR.

             BY ADVS.
             R1 BY MR.SUNIL SHANKAR
             R2 BY SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2022, THE

     COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A. No. 252/2022            :2:




              Dated this the 16th day of March, 2022.

                            JUDGMENT

S. MANIKUMAR,CJ.

Challenging the judgment dated 08.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No.

20810 of 2021 passed by the writ court, this appeal is filed.

2. On 21st January, 2022, when the matter came up for

admission, inviting our attention to Annexure A dated 10.02.2022

submitted by the appellant to the Branch Manager, South Indian Bank

Ltd., Ponkunnam for OTS settlement, Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellant/owner of the building submitted

that the appellant would pay Rs.1.50 lakhs (Rupees One Lakh Fifty

Thousand only) immediately and a further sum of Rs.2.5 Crores

(Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) by 31.03.2022 and thereafter,

make payments as per Annexure A OTS proposal. He further

submitted that the balance amount would be paid by 30.06.2022 and

that there is some slight deviation from the OTS proposal.

3. While ordering notice, this Court directed Mr. Sunil Shankar,

the learned counsel appearing for the South Indian Bank, to get

instructions on the OTS proposal.

4. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, on

instructions, Mr. Sunil Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the

South Indian Bank, respondent No.1, submitted that for considering

the OTS proposal, a demand for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was made

and since the said amount was not deposited in the loan account, OTS

proposal is pending consideration.

5. Responding to the above and inviting our attention to

Annexure C letter addressed to the Branch Manager, South Indian

Bank Limited, Ponkunnam Branch, Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior

counsel, submitted that a separate account has been opened for the

purpose of consideration of the OTS proposal and that the appellant

had already undertaken to transfer the said amount for consideration

of OTS and that the said amount would be transferred to the loan

account within two days. Submission of the learned Senior Counsel is

placed on record.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

pleadings and materials on record.

7. From the above, it could be deduced that the only

impediment for not considering the OTS proposal was non payment of

the loan account. In as much as the appellant had already submitted

Annexure C undertaking and also agreed today today to deposit the

amount by two days, we are of the view that there is no impediment in

considering the OTS proposal on receipt of the said amount in the loan

account.

8. Giving due consideration to the rival submissions made, we

are not inclined to set aside the judgment in entirety.

9. However, taking note of the fact that the Bank has come

forward to consider the OTS proposal, we direct the appellant to

deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs towards upfront payment for considering

the OTS Proposal. Pending consideration of the OTS proposal, no

adverse action be taken.

10. We also make it clear that if the appellant fails to deposit the

said amount to the loan account within the aforesaid period, the Bank

is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

With the above observations and directions, this appeal is

disposed of.

sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX OF WA 252/2022

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

Annexure A TRUE COPY OF OTS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10-02-2022.

Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE THREE PAY ORDERS DATED 07-02-

2022 AND 10-02-2022, REMITTING RS.47 LAKHS. Annexure C TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 14-02-2022 ISSUED BY MR.SREEKUMAR TO THE BANK, UNDERTAKING TO TRANSFER RS.50 LAKHS AS UPFRONT PAYMENT TO THE OTS PROPOSAL OF THE APPELLANT.

Annexure D PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

/True Copy/

P.S to Judge.

rv