Kanjirapally Scb Ltd vs The Kerala Co-Operative Ombudsman
2024 Latest Caselaw 33523 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kanjirapally Scb Ltd vs The Kerala Co-Operative Ombudsman on 21 November, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                                2024:KER:87525
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

 THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/30TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                 WP(C) NO. 28916 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

         KANJIRAPALLY SCB LTD
         NO. 2061, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
         PIN - 686 507.

         BY ADV
         P.C.SASIDHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
         PIN - 695 034.

    2    SOPHIYAMMA THOMAS
         PALAKKUZHIYIL VEEDU, VANCHIMALA P.O,
         KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686506


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                  2024:KER:87525

W.P.(C) No.28916 of 2024
                               :2:
                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of November, 2024

The petitioner-Bank is before this Court aggrieved by

Ext.P4 order of the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman. By

Ext.P4 order, the Ombudsman directed the Bank that it shall

provide the complainant feasible relaxation in the interest

payable and other charges, to facilitate a One Time

Settlement of the loan in question.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner

cannot be forced to sign a One Time Settlement, especially

when a One Time Settlement Scheme as approved by the

Government is not current. Circular No.18/2024 relating to

One Time Settlement Scheme was in force only till

31.07.2024. In the circumstances, Ext.P4 is an unexecutable

order in law.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing

for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the 2 nd 2024:KER:87525

respondent, there was no appearance for the 2 nd respondent

when the case is called today.

4. It is a settled proposition of law that 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], the conditions of One Time Settlement

cannot be enlarged by this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. When the law being so, the

Ombudsman is not justified in directing grant of One Time

Settlement, when the Scheme is not in force.

5. Standing Counsel representing the

petitioner submits that the total outstanding amount payable

by the 2nd respondent as on 21.11.2024 is ₹16,35,289/- and

considering the facts of the case, a waiver of penal interest to

an amount of ₹81,841/- can be extended to the 2 nd

respondent. The 2nd respondent will have to remit the balance

amount of ₹15,53,448/-.

2024:KER:87525

6. Taking into consideration the entire facts of

the case, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P4 order, however,

granting certain reliefs to the 2nd respondent.

7. Ext.P4 is therefore set aside. The 2 nd

respondent is permitted to settle the loan account by paying

₹15,53,448/- within a period of one month along with

accruing interest and other Bank Charges, if any.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE AMR 2024:KER:87525

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28916/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 29/05/2023 IN ARC NO. 294/2023.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF COM.NO.86/2024 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 19/03/2024.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 03/04/2024 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2024 IN COM.NO.86/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.