Aneesh Ab vs Dhanlaxmi Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 10947 Ker

Kerala High Court

Aneesh Ab vs Dhanlaxmi Bank on 12 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 15876 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          ANEESH AB, AGED 44 YEARS
          S/O SOMAN, RESIDING AT AATTUCHIRA KUMARAKOM NORTH PO.,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686563

          BY ADVS.
          A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917)
          P.T.SHEEJISH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     DHANLAXMI BANK
          REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM BRANCH,
          BHAGYALAKSHMI ARCADE, CHILDREN LIBRARY JUNCTION,
          THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686001

    2     DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
          KOTTAYAM TALUK, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
          PWD OFFICE COMPLEX, NEAR KSRTC BUS STATION, KOTTAYAM
          DISTRICT,, PIN - 686001

          SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, SC




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15876 OF 2024
                                        2


                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner singularly seeks a direction to the 1 st

respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation, thus permitting him

to pay off the entire outstanding in the loan account availed of

from them in 30 equal monthly installments. He also seeks that the

1st respondent be directed to provide him Account Statements, so

as to enable him to do as afore.

2. However, in response to the afore submissions of

Sri.P.T.Sheejish - learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri.P.Vijayaraghavan - learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent Bank, submitted that the representation made by the

petitioner is not liable to be considered because the terms of the

loans have long expired; and that the best which can be offered to

the petitioner is that he be permitted to pay off the entire liability

in lump sum, under a proper settlement to be offered by him. He

added that, for this, petitioner will have to make a proper

application, offering the upfront payment and indicating the

manner in which the balance will be liquidated; which will then be

considered by the competent Authority of the Bank, subject to

applicable terms. He, however, explained that there is no 'One-

Time-Settlement' scheme as of now.

3. I have no doubt that the afore stand of the respondent- WP(C) NO. 15876 OF 2024

Bank is the most apposite in the circumstances presented because,

this Court cannot direct them to allow borrowers to settle loan

accounts in installments, unless it is conceded; and hence, the only

other option for the petitioner is to seek a 'One-Time-Settlement',

as per the terms to be fixed by the Bank. For this, he will have to

make a proper offer, indicating the amount that he will be able to

pay upfront and the manner in which the balance will be

honoured.

In the afore circumstances,

(a) I allow this Writ Petition to the limited extent of leaving

liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before

the Bank, seeking settlement of his loan account; and if this is

done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by its

competent Authority, stipulating the terms under which it can be

accepted - if it is so acceptable; thus culminating in an

appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously

as is possible thereafter.

(b) Needless to say, I have not entered into any of the rival

contentions of the parties, including as to whether the petitioner is

entitled to One-Time-Settlement or otherwise, and these matters

are left open to the Bank to decide appropriately on a case-by-case

basis, after hearing the petitioner.

WP(C) NO. 15876 OF 2024

(c) It also goes without saying that, until such time as the

afore is done and the resultant order communicated to the

petitioner - in the event he invokes the remedy reserved to him in

(a) above, all further coercive recovery action against him will

stand deferred; but which can be taken forward based on such a

decision, without having to obtain any further orders from this

Court thereafter.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 15876 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15876/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 12.03.2024 OF 'S N MICRO FINANCE ACTION FORUM'

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.03.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 'SN MICRO FINANCE ACTION FORUM' MR.

ANEESH KUMAR BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT