Shaly.C.S vs Canara Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 11051 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shaly.C.S vs Canara Bank on 12 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 15368 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SHALY.C.S,
         AGED 52 YEARS
         NAKSHATRA, PVN E24,
         PILLA VEEDU NAGAR,
         KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM.P.O,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

         BY ADVS.
         C.S.MANILAL
         S.NIDHEESH


RESPONDENT:

         CANARA BANK,
         NALANCHIRA BRANCH,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695005
         REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

         BY ADVS.
         GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
         K.JOHN MATHAI
         JOSON MANAVALAN
         KURYAN THOMAS
         PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
         RAJA KANNAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.15368 of 2024

                               :2:


                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024

The petitioner, who has availed a financial advance

from the respondent-Bank and against whom proceedings

are initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P1 and

to direct the respondent to consider Ext.P5 and grant three

months time for paying the settlement amount.

2. Heard.

3. The pleadings in the writ petition would indicate

that by Ext.P2, the petitioner was offered a One Time

Settlement under which the petitioner was to pay ₹3,20,000/-

on or before 19.01.2024, ₹4,30,000/- on or before

24.02.2024 and ₹8,50,000/- on or before 18.04.2024.

4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has

remitted only ₹3,20,000/- which is the first instalment. The

petitioner states that the petitioner's husband is suffering

from serious medical issues and unless three months time is

granted to the petitioner to honour the One Time Settlement,

the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and loss.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issue

of varying conditions of One Time Settlement between the

Bank and the borrower in the judgment in State Bank of

India v. Arvindra Electronics Private Limited [(2023) 1

SCC 540] and has held that the High Court in exercise of

powers under Article 226 cannot enlarge or vary the

conditions of any One Time Settlement entered into by a

Bank with its borrower.

6. In view of the law laid down by the the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the petitioner will have to approach the Bank

itself for any further relief / rearrangement of loan.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting

the petitioner to approach the Bank with appropriate

representation for any variation in the One Time Settlement

agreement.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15368/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 3.1.2024 OF TAKING POSSESSION Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT LETTER DATED 19.1.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT ISSUED BY KERALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE (KIMS) DATED 28.5.2015 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED 26.4.2023 ISSUED BY KIMS HEALTH Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 7.4.2024