Sujatha Jaymon vs Dhanlaxmi Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 10979 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10979 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sujatha Jaymon 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. 15758 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

              SUJATHA JAYMON
              AGED 58 YEARS
              W/O JAYMON, RESIDING AT KALAPUR, KUMARAKOM PO, KOTTAYAM,
              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. 15758 OF 2024
                                          2

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner singularly seeks a direction

to the 1st 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 an Account

Statement, 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 WP(C) NO. 15758 OF 2024

the entire liability in lumpsum, 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.

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 WP(C) NO. 15758 OF 2024

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 WP(C) NO. 15758 OF 2024

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.

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 SAS JUDGE WP(C) NO. 15758 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15758/2024

PETITIONER'S 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