Telangana High Court
Narayan Das Ahuja vs The Telangana State Finance ... on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.44617 of 2022
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ...to pass an order, or orders, direction or directions, or issue a
writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents herein to consider the request of the petitioner for one time
settlement of outstanding loan amount by exempting the interest and
consequently declare the action of the respondents after forcing the
petitioner for down payment of Rs.1,36,950/‐ two times for arriving one
time settlement through letter addressed by the respondent no.3 to the
petitioner vide No.AFC/MNCL/ACCNTS/2019‐20/858 dated.03.02.2020
and then not coming forward for the same is illegal, arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India..."
2. Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that after disposal of S.A.No.216 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner approached the respondents for one
time settlement of the loan amount and by letter dated 03.02.2020, the
3rd respondent has asked the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs.1,36,950/- and service charges of Rs.2,360/-, The petitioner paid an
amount of Rs.1,36,000/- as well as service charges of Rs.2,360/- on
07.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has not received any further
communication from the respondents and the petitioner has been
repeatedly requested them to consider the request of one time
settlement. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has informed orally to the
petitioner to deposit another amount of Rs.1,36,950/- as down payment
and petitioner paid said amount of Rs.1,36,950/- through cheque
13.08.2021 and on the same requested the respondents to consider for
one time settlement. But, so far the respondents have not come up with
one time settlement and they have not sent any reply. Learned counsel
submits that the respondents have agreed for one time settlement and
forcing him to pay Rs.1,36,950/- two times and they are not given any
reply to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner need not pay the
interest on the said amount. Hence, there shall be a direction to the
respondents to give facility of one time settlement to the petitioner and
exempt the interest.
3. Sri M.Hamsa Raju, learned Standing Counsel, submits that one
time settlement cannot be asked as a matter of right in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Bijnor Urban
Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor & others vs. Meenal Agarwal and
others (in Civil Appeal No.7411 of 2021). He submits that in the year
2019, as the petitioner insisted for one time settlement, the respondents
have asked the petitioner to give postdated cheques and so far the
petitioner has not come forward with the said cheques. He further
submits that if the petitioner comes forward with the said cheques and
makes an application, the respondents will process the same as per the
procedure. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner
has failed to submit the requisite documents for processing his case for
one time settlement.
4. Taking the submission of learned Standing Counsel into
consideration, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to
submit the relevant documents/cheques and make an application, as
required, for one time settlement. On such submission, the respondents
shall process the same in accordance with law, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of the application/cheques. No order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
January 18, 2023
mar
