Manu.A.M vs State Bank Of India on 2 June, 2025

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Manu.A.M vs State Bank Of India on 2 June, 2025

The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.9823 of 2025, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to permit him to close the loan account mentioned in Ext.P2 possession notice dated 23.03.2023, by selling secured assets to a prospective purchaser, within the time limit stipulated under RINN SAMADHAN 2024-25 Scheme. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to return the original title deed of the secured assets mentioned in Ext.P2 possession notice, once the petitioner closes the loan account by availing the benefit under RINN SAMADHAN 2024-25 Scheme introduced by the respondent Bank.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner stood as a guarantor in a loan availed by his brother Sri.Siju Madhavan, by offering as security, property having an extent of 2.71 Ares in Sy.No.213/2/7 of Enanellur Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk. Since the borrower defaulted repayment of the loan amount, the respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of W.A.No.702 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:38605 Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), which resulted in the issuance of Ext.P2 possession notice dated 23.03.2023.

3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2025, dismissed the writ petition; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank for settlement of the loan accounts on any terms acceptable by the Bank. Paragraphs 7 and 8 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

"7. Standing Counsel would submit that this property is pledged for as many as five loans, out of which two loans are availed by the petitioner. Therefore, even if the petitioner's loans are settled, still the property cannot be released, as the property is involved as security in a loan availed by his brother.

8. It is in such circumstances, the Bank is not interested in OTS proposal, as it would involve releasing of property before the settlement of the secured loan accounts. In view of the facts as stated above, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner will, however, be at liberty to approach the Bank for settlement of the loan accounts of the petitioner and his brother on any terms acceptable to the Bank."

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-petitioner is before this Court in this W.A.No.702 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:38605 writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

5. On 10.04.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the Division Bench noticed that there is no reference in the pleadings or in the impugned judgment to any written application made by the appellant to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an additional affidavit will be placed on record, producing therewith written applications made by the appellant during the currency of the OTS Scheme, if any, and thereafter, approach the Vacation Court for appropriate orders.

6. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, the appellant has placed on record Annexure I request dated 10.03.2025 made before the respondent Bank. The said request reads thus;

"With reference to the above, I wish to inform you that I have received a communication dated 04.03.2025 informing me that the bank has introduced a RINN SAMADHAN 2024-25 SCHEME' an OTS Scheme which will end on 31.03.2025.

Under the above circumstances, I am ready and willing to close the loan account by availing the benefit of the OTS Scheme mentioned above by selling a portion of the secured asset to a prospective purchaser. W.A.No.702 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:38605 I also request you to provide the details of the figure required to close the loan account under the said scheme. Kindly consider this request and permit me to close the loan account under the 'RINN SAMADHAN 2024-25 SCHEME otherwise serious prejudice will be caused to me."

7. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

8. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of the communication dated 04.03.2025 issued by the respondent Bank, addressed to the petitioner, pointing out the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme - RINN SAMADHAN 2024-25 Scheme announced by the respondent Bank. The said communication contains the terms of payment, which provide that the appellant-petitioner has to deposit 10% of the OTS amount at the time of submission of the application to indicate his willingness for OTS, failing which the application will not be processed.

9. Without complying with the aforesaid condition in Ext.P3 communication, the appellant-petitioner submitted Annexure I request dated 10.03.2025 before the respondent Bank, wherein it is stated that he is ready and willing to close the loan account by availing the benefit of OTS Scheme, by selling a portion of the secured asset to a proposed prospective purchaser. W.A.No.702 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:38605 As evident from Annexure I, the said application made by the appellant for availing the benefit of OTS Scheme is not one made in terms of the specific condition stipulated in Ext.P3 communication dated 04.03.2025 regarding deposit of 10% of the OTS amount at the time of submission of application to indicate the willingness for OTS. When Ext.P3 communication provides in categorical terms that an application without deposit of 10% of the OTS amount will not be processed by the respondent Bank, the appellant cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to permit him to close the loan account mentioned in Ext.P2 possession notice dated 23.03.2023, as sought for in this writ petition, under the OTS Scheme - RINN SAMADHAN 2024-25 Scheme.

10. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

W.A.No.702 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:38605

11. Having failed to comply with the requirements of the OTS Scheme - RINN SAMADHAN 2024-25 Scheme, the appellant- petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to consider his request to close the loan account mentioned in Ext.P2 possession notice dated 23.03.2023 as sought for in the writ petition.

In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment dated 24.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.9823 of 2025. The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE MIN W.A.No.702 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:38605 APPENDIX OF WA 702/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court