Kerala High Court
Mr. Sameer V. T., S/O. ... vs State Bank Of India on 20 June, 2023
1
WP(C) No.12316 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12316 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
MR. SAMEER V. T., S/O. SHOUKATHALI, VALIYATHODIYIIL
HOUSE, KARAMBURATH PARAMBA, KOLATHARA P.O.,
AGED 41 YEARS,KARAMBURATH , PARAMBA, KOLATHARA P.O,
KOZHIKODE. 673655
BY ADV E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE BANK OF INDIA ,
ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, 40/947 1ST FLOOR R
S BUILDING, METRO PILLAR NO. 697, OPP MAHARAJAS
COLLEGE GROUND, M G ROAD, ERNAKULAM, 682011
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JITHESH MENON, SC, SBI
TOM K.THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) No.12316 of 2023
C.S DIAS,J.
---------------------------
WP(C) No.12316 of 2023
-----------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2023 .
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to
permit the petitioner to be given an opportunity to close the
loan account by giving maximum reductions.
2. The petitioner's case is that he was a guarantor to a
loan that was availed by a company doing business in
footwear. The petitioner's property was offered as collateral
security. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other
unforeseen circumstances, the principal borrower could not
pay the instalments on time. The respondent has initiated
proceedings against the secured asset under the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act (in short, 'Act'). The petitioner is
prepared to pay the outstanding amount in equated monthly
WP(C) No.12316 of 2023
instalments. This Court by Ext P1 judgment dated 14.7.2022
permitted the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery
Tribunal through an application under Sec.17 of the
Securitisation Act. Subsequently, by Ext P2 judgment, this
Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Bank with a
proposal under the One Time Settlement Scheme. The
petitioner alleges that he deposited an amount of
Rs.3,30,00,000/- before the respondent by availing the one
time settlement scheme. But, the respondent again initiated
coercive proceedings against him. Consequently, the
petitioner again approached this Court to consider his request
for one time settlement scheme. But, this Court by Ext P4
judgment, closed the writ petition as infructuous in view of the
fact that the Bank had rejected his proposal. Now, the Bank is
surging ahead the recovery proceedings as against the
petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is prepared to pay the
outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments.
WP(C) No.12316 of 2023
3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter
alia, denying the allegations in the writ petition. The
respondent has also contended that the writ petition is not
maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court. It is the case of the respondent that the proposal of the
petitioner was placed before the High level Committee of the
Bank for approval. The Bank considered the proposal and
permitted the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,70,00,000/-
as against the total due of Rs.6,20,08,991/-. But, the petitioner
failed to pay the amount made under the one time settlement
scheme. Therefore, the respondent is not willing to show any
further indulgence in favour of the petitioner . Hence the writ
petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; Sri.Bijumon E.A, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Tom K.Thomas, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
WP(C) No.12316 of 2023
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank
Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320),
after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial pronouncements
rendered under the Act, has categorically declared that High
Courts shall not, unless in extraordinary circumstances,
interfere with proceedings initiated under the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, in writ proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India
vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt Ltd [ 2022 KHC 7165] has held
that it is not for the High Courts to enlarge the time period
fixed by the Banks under the One Time Settlement Scheme.
7. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent/Bank, it is seen that the petitioner's proposal to pay
the outstanding amount under the One Time Settlement
Scheme was accepted by the Bank by directing him to pay an
WP(C) No.12316 of 2023
amount of Rs.3,70,00,000/-. Indisputably, the petitioner has
not availed the benefit of the scheme. Therefore, I am of the
view that there is no extraordinary circumstance made out to
entertain the writ petition by exercising the plenary powers of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his
remedies, in accordance with law.
sd/-
sks/20.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
WP(C) No.12316 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12316/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WRIT
PETITION NO.22502 OF 2022 DATED
14.07.2022.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 24854 OF 2022 DATED
10.08.2022.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE-TIME SETTLEMENT
PROPOSAL ON 19.08.2022.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of settlement offer given by the
bank to the petitioner dated 15.02.2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P4 TURE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION
NO. 36343 OF 2022 DATED 28.11.2022.
