Kerala High Court
Sreeram M.R vs Authorised Officer on 15 December, 2023
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 41958 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SREERAM M.R
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O RAMESH KUMAR,
KALATHIL (H), KIZHEKKETHARA
KOTTEKKAD P.O, PALAKKAD-67873.
BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORISED OFFICER
KERALA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE KGB TOWERS,
AK ROAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505.
2 BRANCH MANAGER
KERALA GRAMIN BANK PUTHUR-PALAKKAD BRANCH
THRIVENI BUILDING, PUTHUR ROAD
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
BY ADV.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.41958 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2023
The father of the petitioner availed three loans from the 2 nd
respondent-Bank. The petitioner is not a borrower or guarantor to
the loan. A Housing Loan of ₹5 lakhs, one Agricultural Loan of ₹4
lakhs and KCC of ₹I lakh. The loans were sanctioned in the years
2014, 2015 and 2016 with condition to repay the same in
installments. The father of the petitioner passed away. There is
insurance taken by the father of the petitioner and the amount of
₹5 lakhs is due to the legal heirs towards insurance. This amount
can be adjusted to loan account.
2. The petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner
was the borrower and he was regular and prompt in the
repayment of the amounts at the beginning. The father of the
petitioner died due to a sudden collapse one day before of his
daughter's marriage. The petitioner and family suffered huge
financial crunch due to this unexpected death of their father. It is
submitted that an insurance policy was taken in the name of the
father of the petitioner for ₹5 lakhs. The petitioner already
approached the insurance authorities to release the amount. It is
under process. The petitioner is ready to deposit the insurance
amount to the loan account.
3. The petitioner is trying to get the matter settled at the
earliest. Therefore, proposal was submitted before respondents
1 and 2. The petitioner wants to settle the entire liability. The
petitioner submitted an application before the respondents
seeking for OTS. The petitioner only wants early consideration of
Ext.P5 application for settlement under OTS. The
non-consideration of Ext.P5 by the respondents is illegal,
arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and against law and therefore
liable to be interfered with. If the respondents take coercive
proceedings in the matter, the same shall result in irreparable
injury, loss and hardships, contends the Counsel for the
petitioner.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the
respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel
denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ
petition. The Standing Counsel however submitted that if Ext.P5
application for One Time Settlement proposal has been received,
the same can be considered in accordance with the OTS Scheme
and Rules of the Bank.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondents to consider Ext.P5 application for One
Time Settlement submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate
decision thereon, within a period of one week. While taking a
decision, the respondents shall also advert to Ext.P2.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41958/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER'S FATHER ISSUED FROM THE
PUTHUSSERY GRAMPANCHAYATH DATED
15.06.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF NEWS
PAPER DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 13(2) NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 17.08.2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 13(4) NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 23.11.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS DATED
09.12.2023
