Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Chandrika Sadanandhan vs Dhanlaxmi Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 10976 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10976 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Chandrika Sadanandhan 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. 15706 OF 2024


PETITIONER:

          CHANDRIKA SADANANDHAN, AGED 65 YEARS
          S/O SADANANDHAN, RESIDING AT KOCHUVETIL,
          THAZATHANGADI, KOTTYAM., PIN - 686005

          BY ADV 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), KOTTAYAMTALUK, 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:
 WPC 15706/24
                                           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 1 st

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 her is that

she be permitted to pay off the entire liability in lumpsum, under

a proper settlement to be offered by her. He added that, for this,

the 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-

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 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/-

RR                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                JUDGE



                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15706/2024

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.
                    ANEESHKUMAR BEFORE THE 1STRESPONDENT
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter