S.B Natarajan vs State Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 6024 Ker

Kerala High Court

S.B Natarajan vs State Bank Of India on 23 February, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 41815 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

    1     S.B NATARAJAN, AGED 86 YEARS, S/O K. BHARATHAN C.K,
          ARUVIPURAM HOUSE, KURIYATHI, MANACAUD P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009

    2     SUSHEELA, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O S.B NATARAJAN,
          ARUVIPURAM HOUSE, KURIYATHI, MANACAUD P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009

          BY ADVS.
          SREEJITH S. NAIR
          S.K.ADHITHYAN
          NEERAJ NARAYAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
          DIRECTOR ( COMPLAINTS ), STATE BANK BHAVAN,
          MADAME CANE ROAD , NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI,
          PIN - 400002

    2     THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA
          HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SANTHINAGAR,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009

    3     THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANACAUD BRANCH ,
          MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009


          BY ADV. SRI. SAIJO HASSAN, FOR R1 TO R3


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 41815/23
                                       2

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction

to respondents to regularise a loan account availed of by them, after

waving the penal interest, so as to enable them to continue to

service the same in terms of the original sanction.

2. However, In response to the afore request of Sri.Sreejith

S.Nair - learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Saijo Hassan -

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, submitted that

there is no subsisting One-Time-Settlement scheme; and therefore,

that if the petitioners approach the 2nd respondent - Chief Manager

with an apposite representation, the same can be considered and any

eligible benefits granted. He submitted that, beyond this, his client

cannot accede to any further relief.

3. Sri.Sreejith S. Nair accepted the afore suggestion.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition, to the

limited extent of leaving liberty to the petitioners to approach the

competent Authority of the 1st respondent with an appropriate

application for settlement of their loan account; and if this is done

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment, the same shall be considered, after affording them an

opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate

order/necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than one month thereafter.

Needless to say, all eligible benefits to the petitioners, as may

be eligible to them under law, will be granted to them, subject to

their entitlement to such being decided by the 1 st respondent,

through the afore exercise.

Sd/-

RR                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                 JUDGE



                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41815/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          THE   TRUE  COPY   OF  THE   REPRESENTATION
                    SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON
                    17/07/2018
Exhibit P2          A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

20.07.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.

SBI/MANCD/030/22-23 DATED 18.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT