Kerala High Court
Hairunnisa vs General Manager on 23 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18092 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
HAIRUNNISA
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O MUNEER, PUTHIYAVEETTIL VEEDU,NADUVILKARA,
VADANAPALLY,THRISSUR,, PIN - 680614
BY ADVS.
MANSOOR.B.H.
SAKEENA BEEGUM
RESPONDENTS:
1 GENERAL MANAGER
KERALA BANK,REGIONAL OFFICE,
SAHAKARANA SHATABDHI MANDIRAM,KOVILAKATHUMPADOM,P.O,
THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680022
2 MANAGER
KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK, VATANAPALLY
BRANCH,VADANAPALLY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680614
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN (STANDING COUNSEL)-R1 & R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.18092 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking to direct the respondent-Bank to allow the petitioner
to clear the amount covered by Ext.P2 in 12 equal monthly
installments and not to dispossess the petitioner from the
mortgaged property.
2. The petitioner had availed a Housing Loan of
₹8 lakhs from the 2nd respondent-Bank in the year 2016. The
repayment period is up to 2026. The petitioner is a Tailor by
profession and she had paid substantial amounts towards
the loan account. But consequent to the down fall in works,
she was unable to repay the monthly EMIs. Therefore, the
respondent-Bank initiated proceedings under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for realization of
WP(C) No.18092 Of 2024
the loan amount and preferred an application before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur and the same is
pending consideration.
3. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached
the District Collector,Thrissur and Joint Registrar General of
Co- operative Societies, Thrissur seeking settlement of loan
account and to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings.
Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to settle the loan
account under Recovery Management Policy of the
respondent-Bank and has issued Ext.P2 by fixing the
minimum settlement amount of ₹8,140,00/-.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf
of the Bank and resisted the writ petition. The Standing
Counsel submitted that the loan account of the petitioner
was permitted to be settled for an amount of ₹8,14,000/-
under Recovery Management Policy. The said amount was
directed to be paid by 27.02.2024. The period was extended
WP(C) No.18092 Of 2024
upto 27.05.2024. If the petitioner fails to remit the said
amount within 27.05.2024, then the petitioner's entire liability
would revert back. This Court cannot, in exercise of the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
enlarge the time granted by the Bank under Recovery
Management Policy, contended the Standing Counsel.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in matters
like One Time Settlement, this Court cannot interfere in
exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. Such settlement under One Time Settlement or
Recovery Management Policy would be purely bilateral
arrangements.
6. Faced with the situation, the counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to
approach the Bank for enlargement of time or for any other
arrangement for repayment of loan.
WP(C) No.18092 Of 2024
In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Bank
for any adjustment or amendment to Ext.P2.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.18092 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18092/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
REF NOCCM & R/KB/RO/TSR/VPY BR/SL
80010143882 DATED 27/1/2023 ISSUED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT
STATEMENT PERMITTED TO SETTLE UNDER
RECOVERY MANAGEMENT POLICY ISSUED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT
