Kerala High Court
Uma Vimal vs The Branch Manager, Idbi Bank 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. 7122 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
UMA VIMAL,
AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O VIMAL KUMAR, AISWARYA,
ERAVIMANGALAM P.O.,
NADATHARA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
BY ADV. SMT.SUJA PADNABAN PILLAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IDBI BANK ,
M.G ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
IDBI BANK LTD,
RETAIL RECOVERY DEPARTMENT,
IDBI BUILDING,
PANAMPALLY NAGAR,
COCHIN, PIN - 682036
BY ADV. SMT.R.REMA, SC
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.7122/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024
The petitioner, who has availed a loan of
₹57 lakhs in the year 2014, is before this Court seeking to
allow the petitioner to settle the loan account on remittance
of overdue amount and to regularise the account. The
petitioner also seeks to quash Exts.P1, P2 and P6. In the
alternate, the petitioner states that the petitioner may be
permitted for a One Time Settlement of loan account.
2. Standing Counsel entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted
that the total outstanding amount payable by the petitioner
as on 23.02.2024 is ₹46,17,594/-. The petitioner had
earlier approached this Court two times. The attempt of the
petitioner is to prolong and defeat the recovery process.
Furthermore, the Bank has already moved the Debts
Recovery Tribunal filing O.A.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing
the respondents.
4. The alternate prayer made by the petitioner is to
permit the petitioner to have an opportunity of One Time
Settlement of the entire loan account. As the petitioner has
not applied for a One Time Settlement earlier, it would only
be proper that the Bank considers the proposal in
accordance with law on conditions.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing
that if the petitioner deposits an amount of ₹10 lakhs within
a period of one week from today and makes a concrete
proposal for One Time Settlement within three weeks
indicating the settlement amount and time line for payment,
then the respondents shall defer all coercive proceedings
against the petitioner till the Bank takes a decision on the
One Time Settlement proposal. If the petitioner fails to pay
₹10 lakhs within one week or fails to make a One Time
Settlement proposal within three weeks, the respondents
will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7122/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
28-02-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF
IMMOVABLE SECURED ASSETS DATED
05.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02.11.2023 IN WPC NO. 35310/2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
02.02.2024 ISSUED FROM IDBI,
ALAPPUZHA BRANCH
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/12/2020
IN TERMS OF RBI RESOLUTION PLAN 2020
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
02.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO OF THE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
