Usha Sunil vs Dhanlaxmi Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 10991 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10991 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Usha Sunil 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. 15782 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          USHA SUNIL, AGED 47 YEARS,
          W/O SUNIL, RESIDING AT POTTAYYIL,
          CHEEPUNKAL 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
          SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP


     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. 15782 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 the entire liability in lumpsum, under a WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2024

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

Bank. For this, she will have to make a proper

offer, indicating the amount that she will be WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2024

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, WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2024

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 JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15782/2024

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