Suresh Kumar M.S vs Branch Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 12426 Ker

Kerala High Court

Suresh Kumar M.S vs Branch Manager on 22 November, 2023

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 38016 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          SURESH KUMAR M.S,
          AGED 59 YEARS, S/O SREEDHARA PANICKER,
          ANUGRAHA, U-100 A, UDIYANOOR TEMPLE ROAD,
          MARUTHANKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 030.

          BY ADVS.
               R.SUNIL KUMAR
               A.SALINI LAL
               NIKITHA SURESH
               ADITYA DEV
               ASWATHY VIJAYAKUMAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1     BRANCH MANAGER
          CANARA BANK, SASTHAMANGALAM BRANCH,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010.

    2     THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
          CANARA BANK, SASTHAMANGALAM BRANCH,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010.

          BY ADV
               M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.38016 of 2023
                               :2:




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2023

The petitioner took a business loan of ₹50 lakhs from

Canara Bank in the year 2014. He also took a housing loan for

₹20 lakhs in the year 2015. Initially, the petitioner was regular in

paying the loan amount but due to Covid-19 pandemic, the

petitioner could not properly remit the loan and hence there

occurred default in payment of the loan amount. Even though

One Time Settlement facility was granted to the petitioner for an

amount of ₹56 lakhs, he could pay of ₹33 lakhs by 31.01.2023.

The petitioner's property is brought to sale on 23.11.2023. The

petitioner states that he is ready to pay the amount if instalment

facility is granted. The petitioner also seeks regularisation of his

housing loan.

2. The Standing Counsel representing the respondents

opposed the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is

submitted that the loan account of the petitioner was declared as

NPA long ago due to consistent default in repayment of loan

instalments. There is no question of grant of instalment facility to

repay the dues at this distance of time.

3. The Standing Counsel submitted on behalf of the

respondents that though the sale was scheduled to be held on

23.11.2023, no bidders have come forward so far. Therefore, the

sale will not be taking place.

4. As the petitioner's loan account is declared as NPA,

the petitioner cannot as if right seek to repay the dues in

instalments. The respondents cannot be legally compelled to

grant instalment facility for repayment. But the respondents are

open to consider any reasonable proposal for settlement of the

account through One Time Settlement.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

permitting the petitioner to make a One Time Settlement

proposal. If the petitioner makes a proposal within a period of 10

days, the respondents shall take appropriate decision thereon

within a further period of one week.

Sd/-

                                        N. NAGARESH
AMR                                         JUDGE





                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38016/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1             TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF OTS ISSUED BY
                       THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 1/11/2022.

Exhibit P2             TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK SHOWING THE
                       REMITTANCE.

Exhibit P3             TRUE COPY OF    THE   SALE   NOTICE   DATED
                       16/10/2023.