Rejani Shiji vs Dhanlaxmi Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 10952 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rejani Shiji 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. 15877 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          REJANI SHIJI, AGED 48 YEARS
          W/O SHIJI, RESIDING AT THACHARATHOPPIL, KUMARAKOM PO,
          KOTTAYAM,, PIN - 686656

          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. 15877 OF 2024
                                    2


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner singularly seeks a direction to the 1 st

respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation, thus permitting

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

of from them in 30 equal monthly installments. She also seeks

that the 1st respondent be directed to provide her Account

Statements, so as to enable her 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 she be permitted to pay off the entire

liability in lump sum, under a proper settlement to be offered by

her. 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. WP(C) NO. 15877 OF 2024

3. I have no doubt that the afore stand of the

respondent-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, she will have to make a proper offer,

indicating the amount that she 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 her 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 WP(C) NO. 15877 OF 2024

matters are left open to the Bank to decide appropriately on a

case-by-case basis, after hearing the petitioner.

(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 she invokes the remedy reserved to her

in (a) above, all further coercive recovery action against her 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. 15877 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15877/2024

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