Kerala High Court
Sujith Sudhakaran vs Central Bank Of India on 23 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 40084 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SUJITH SUDHAKARAN
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.K.R. SUDHAKARAN,
KURIAKOTTU HOUSE, AMBAKKAD DESOM,
PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, PUZHAKKAL P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680553.
BY ADV P.K.SAJEEV
RESPONDENTS:
1 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
PUZHAKKAL BRANCH, SIVADA COMPLEX,
MUTHUVARA, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT REP.BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER., PIN - 680553.
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, PUZHAKKAL BRANCH,
SIVADA COMPLEX, MUTHUVARA,
PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680553.
3 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH.2ND FLOOR, SIVASAKTHI
BUILDING, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, ROUND NORTH,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN ANTONY
SRI.K.M.ANEESH, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.40084 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024
The petitioner, who has availed financial advances
from the 1st respondent-Bank filed the writ petition when the
Bank initiated coercive proceedings under the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner sought for the
following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to
consider and accept the One Time Settlement offer as
already submitted by him as Exts.P3 to P7.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to
release the title deed of the mortgaged property to the 3 rd
respondent so as to enable the petitioner to offer the same
as security before the 3rd respondent for getting the
auctioned amount and thereby to close the loan account
with the Bank by utilising the said amount.
iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. When the writ petition came up for admission on
01.12.2023, this Court passed an interim order staying
further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 for a period of one
month on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of
₹10 lakhs within a period of one month. The petitioner states
that the petitioner has already remitted ₹10 lakhs.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
4. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner
was offered a One Time Settlement on 05.11.2022. The
petitioner had to clear the OTS amount within six months
from the date of One Time Settlement. The One Time
Settlement amount was ₹65 lakhs. The petitioner paid only
₹8,72,000/-. In effect, the petitioner is seeking time to
enlarge the period to pay the OTS amount.
5. The petitioner was not able to pay substantial
amount pursuant to the OTS amount of ₹65 lakhs. In the
circumstances of the case and in the light of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India v. Arvindra
Electronics Private Limited [(2023)1 SCC 540], this Court,
under Article 226, cannot enlarge the period of OTS entered
into between the Bank and the borrower. At the same time, I
am of the view that if the petitioner can make a revised
proposal for One Time Settlement, the Bank can consider
the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing
that if the petitioner submits an application for OTS revising
the proposals within a period of two weeks, the Bank shall
consider the same and take appropriate decision thereon,
within a further period of two weeks. If the petitioner makes
an application for OTS within a period of two weeks,
coercive proceedings shall stand deferred till the Bank takes
a decision. The amount of ₹10 lakhs paid by the petitioner
pursuant to the interim direction of this Court shall be treated
as upfront payment towards the OTS proposal.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40084/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
03.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE
SARFAESI ACT
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
22.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE
SARFAESI ACT
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ONE
TIME SETTLEMENT OFFER DATED
05.11.2022 WITH RESPECT TO ACCOUNT
NO.3477945143 FOR THE LOAN AMOUNT OF
RS.50,00,000/-
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ONE
TIME SETTLEMENT OFFER DATED
05.11.2022 WITH RESPECT TO ACCOUNT
NO.3719067979 FOR THE WCTL FACILITY
OF RS.4,20,000/-
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ONE
TIME SETTLEMENT OFFER DATED
05.11.2022 WITH RESPECT TO ACCOUNT
NO.3898270621 FOR THE GECL I FACILITY
OF RS.10,00,000/-
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ONE
TIME SETTLEMENT OFFER DATED
05.11.2022 WITH RESPECT TO ACCOUNT
NO.5115675106 FOR THE FITL FACILITY
OF RS.6.70,000/-
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ONE
TIME SETTLEMENT OFFER DATED
05.11.2022 WITH RESPECT TO ACCOUNT
NO.5192943175 FOR THE GECL II
FACILITY OF RS.5,09,113/-
Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE
AUCTIONING OF THE KURI FOR
RS.69,00,000/-
Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
11.11.2023 ISSUED BY VISAKH
RAMARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
TO THE PETITIONER
