Kerala High Court
Biju M Johny vs The State Bank Of India on 6 August, 2025
2025:KER:58677
R.P.980/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 980 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.18710
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
BIJU M JOHNY
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O JOHNY, BIJU BHAVAN, CHEMMANTHOOR, PUNALUR P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691305
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH
SMT.AKHILASREE BHASKARAN
SHRI.ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO
SHRI.AJITH SUNNY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C):
1 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN STATE BANK BHAVAN,
CORPORATE CENTRE,MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA,
PIN - 400021
2 THE REGIONAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,
LMS COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM WEST GATE, VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,
LMS COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM WEST GATE, VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2025:KER:58677
R.P.980/2025 2
4 THE CHIEF MANAGER
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE-II,
NEAR KOTTARAKARA RAILWAY STATION, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691506
5 THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA MUSCAT TOWER, NH744, NEAR SN
COLLEGE JUNCTION PUNALUR BRANCH, PUNALOR P.O KOLLAM,
KERALA, PIN - 691305
6 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 16TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICE
BUILDING SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
7 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, 3RD FLOOR JEEVAN , DEEP
BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADV SHRI.TOM K.THOMAS
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC
SRI.JITHESH MENON, SC
SMT.O.M.SHALINA, DSGI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.08.2025, THE COURT ON 06.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58677
R.P.980/2025 3
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
......................................................
R.P. No. 980 of 2025
......................................................
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This review petition is filed against the judgment dated
17.07.2025 in W.P(C) No.18710 of 2025. The writ petition was filed with
the following reliefs:-
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the respondents to close the loan account of
the petitioner availed from the 5th respondent and leading to
Exhibit P1 Agreement as discharged and return the title deeds
deposited as security.
ii. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the
petitioner discharged the loan liability due to the respondents
1-5 under Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.
iii. Issue Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the respondents 1, 5 and 6 to consider and
pass orders on Exhibit P18 representation within the time limit
fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction that this
honourable court deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent bank,
2025:KER:58677
which reads as follows:-
"3. At the very outset, it is submitted that the above Writ
Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. In fact
the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court suppressing
the fact that he had filed O.P(DRT) No.225 of 2023, O.P(DRT)
No.388 of 2023, O.P(DRT) No.131 of 2024 and O.P(DRT) No.272 of
2024 raising the self-same contentions. The judgment in
O.P(DRT) No.131 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024 is produced herewith
which may be marked as Exhibit R2(a). This Hon'ble Court
found that the terms of the settlement cannot be altered by
this Hon'ble Court, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt.
Ltd. (2023 (1) SCC 540). However, this court directed the
petitioner to prosecute the Interlocutory Application filed by
the petitioner seeking for stay of the recovery proceedings in
S.A.No.615 of 2022, pending before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal-2, Ernakulam. It is submitted that thereafter
petitioner filed O.P.(DRT). No.272 of 2024 again for the self-
same relief, which was disposed of vide judgment dated
30.08.2024, a true copy of which is produced herewith which
may be marked as Exhibit R2(b). Thereafter, the Debts
Recovery Tribunal by order dated 09.09.2024 rejected the
contention of the petitioner herein to deposit the balance
amount as per the settlement dated 08.10.2024 and dismissed
the stay petition. The copy of the printout of the proceedings
of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.3239/2024 in
S.A.No.615 of 2022 is produced herewith which may be marked
as Exhibit R2(c), It is submitted that the above order has
become final and the petitioner is bound by the findings
2025:KER:58677
therein. It is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the
above judgments of this Hon'ble Court as well as the order of
the Debts Recovery Tribunal. This Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed on this sole ground.
4. This defendant deny all the averments and allegations in the
Writ Petition except the extent specifically admitted
hereunder. It is true that Exhibit P1 settlement was arrived
with the petitioner for payment of the amounts due to the
bank. The settlement was arrived as per the terms and
conditions stipulated therein. Therefore, the petitioner was
bound to comply with the terms strictly and in case of default
the bank was entitled to cancel the settlement. In the case on
hand, it is submitted that the petitioner could not pay the
amount as stipulated in Exhibit P1. Therefore, Exhibit P2 was
issued by the bank and the same does not suffer from any
infirmity. It is settled position that the terms of settlement can
be varied or changed only by mutual consent between the
parties as contemplated u/s.62 of the Indian Contract Act. The
court cannot vary or alter the terms of a contract under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the decision reported in Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank
Limited and others reported in 2023 SCC 805 and State Bank of
India vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt.Ltd. (223 (1) SCC 540) has
affirmed the above position and has further held that the
commercial wisdom of the banks cannot be questioned under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In view of the above, the petitioner was bound to pay the
entire amount as per the statement of accounts maintained by
2025:KER:58677
the bank and not as per the settlement which did not fructify.
It is true that the bank had tried to get approval for extension
of time from the competent authority. However, in view of the
delay in payment of the amounts by the petitioner, he himself
foreclosed the benefit under Exhibit P1 settlement."
3. Finding that the petitioner had suppressed the details of the
cases filed and their judgments in O.P(DRT) No.225 of 2023, O.P(DRT)
No.388 of 2023, O.P(DRT) No.131 of 2024 and O.P(DRT) No.272 of 2024,
where the issue was more or less the same and expecting a dismissal on
the ground of suppression of facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner
sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, without prejudice to the
right to file a fresh writ petition. The liberty sought by the petitioner was
not granted on account of the suppression noticed above, and placing
reliance on the proviso to Rule 146 of the Rules of the High Court of
Kerala, 1971. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue his
reliefs in the pending Securitisation Application before the Tribunal.
4. This review is filed contending that there was no suppression
as it was not material for the determination of the lis between the parties.
The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also cited. The
contention on merit was that the petitioner had discharged the entire
loan liability placing reliance on Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, as
2025:KER:58677
the petitioner had received whatsapp messages from the third respondent
directing payment of amounts which was received by the respondents and
therefore the petitioner is entitled to get discharge of the liability under
Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act.
5. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record at
all, warranting any interference in this review. The fact that the filing or
the judgments in the above cases were not mentioned is not disputed, and
the contention is that the same was not relevant. This cannot be
accepted. That apart, the Securitisation Application preferred by the
petitioner is pending consideration before the Tribunal and therefore,
liberty to file a fresh writ petition could not have been granted in the
circumstances mentioned above.
Consequently, there is no merit in this review petition, and the
same is dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
okb/
2025:KER:58677
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN GOVERNMENT OF
NCT OF DELHI V. BSK REALTORS LLP (2024 KHC
6317) OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
