Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 1119 OF 2024 PETITIONER JOS ALAPPAT AGED 57 YEARS S/O OUSEPH, ALAPPAT HOUSE, KUTTUR PO, KOTTEKKADU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680013 BY ADVS. K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN JISSMON A KURIAKOSE SANAL C.S SIDHARTHAN M.T. N.J.NETTO RESPONDENT: AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT, CANARA BANK ARM BRANCH HAVING OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, CANARA BANK BUILDING,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016 SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2024
The petitioner has availed a loan for an amount of ₹2 Crores. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to permit the petitioner to liquidate the overdue liability in easy instalments and till such time to stall all further proceedings pursuant to Ex.P2. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, when the Bank approaches the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thrissur invoking Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner
has made an offer for One Time Settlement agreeing to discharge the liability for a total sum of ₹160 lakhs. Perhaps because the offer is not at all attractive, the Bank has not taken any decision thereon. Now, the Advocate Commissioner is about to take possession of the secured asset mortgaged by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to make a revised and better offer for One Time Settlement of the loan account, if a breathing time is given.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a consistent defaulter. The petitioner has not made any remittances for the last so many months. In spite of repeated requests, the petitioner has not cared to maintain the loan account. This is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contended the Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
6. The petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to make a bulk payment as an upfront payment for consideration of his request for One Time Settlement.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner remits an amount of ₹25 lakhs within a period of one week from today and a further amount of ₹25 lakhs within a period of two weeks from today and makes a proposal for One Time Settlement within that time, the respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate decision thereon, in accordance with law. If the petitioner makes remittances as directed above and makes a proposal for One Time Settlement, the respondents shall defer coercive proceedings against the petitioner till a decision is taken by the Bank. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE
hmh APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1119/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO. 6651 OF 2023 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, THRISSUR Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DATED COMMISSIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF IA 3054/2023 IN SA BEFORE THE HONBLE DRT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OTS ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT DATED 06/11/2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON