Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Kerala High Court

Asokan Vasu vs State Bank Of India on 16 September, 2020

Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

  WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 25TH BHADRA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.9126 OF 2020(M)


PETITIONER/S:

                ASOKAN VASU,PROPRIETOR, M/S MANGALATH HOTELS AND
                RESORTS, CHANDAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM
                DISTRICT, PIN-691 534.

                BY ADV. SRI.P.P.BIJU

RESPONDENT/S:

                STATE BANK OF INDIA
                STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND, OPP
                MUSEUM, WEST GATE, VIKAS BHAVAN
                P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

                R1 BY SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SC, SBI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9126 OF 2020(M)                 2




                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who had availed a term loan for an amount of Rs.2 Crore from the respondent bank for the construction and furnishing of a 4 Star hotel and resort, has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent bank to grant the benefit of One Time Settlement facility with instalments.

Through a counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was irregular on repayment of the loan and hence the bank classified the loan as NPA on 29.06.2016 and initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act immediately thereafter. Although the petitioner voluntarily approached the bank for One Time Settlement as per the scheme in existence, on 31.03.2019, and the proposal of the petitioner for payment of Rs.54,52,359/- was accepted by the bank, the petitioner, after having made certain payment towards the OTS Scheme, did not make the balance payment within the time granted to him by the bank. Instead, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C)No.30751/2019 seeking extension of time for making the payment. This Court, however, did not interfere in the matter and the petitioner consequently paid 20% of the approved OTS amount of Rs.10,90,090/- within time. As per the scheme, the balance amount of Rs.40,89,269/- had to be paid by the petitioner on or before 23.03.2020. Taking note of the Covid-19 pandemic situation, the bank suo motu extended the time, initially till 30.06.2020 and thereafter till 30.08.2020. Although the extension of time was granted by the bank, the petitioner did not pay any amount other than an amount of Rs.2 Lakh on 06.05.2020 that too pursuant to an interim direction from this Court in the present writ petition. It is now pointed out by the respondent bank that the outstanding amount to be paid by the petitioner as on 22.07.2020, WP(C).No.9126 OF 2020(M) 3 without considering the OTS Scheme, is Rs.1,54,86,171.64.

2. I have heard Sri.P.P.Biju, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that although the petitioner has approached the respondent bank seeking the OTS Scheme, and the said benefits were extended to the petitioner, the petitioner did not make necessary payments under the scheme within the time granted by the bank. I also note that although the bank had unilaterally extended the time for paying the balance amounts under the OTS Scheme till 30.08.2020, the petitioner did not make the entire payment stipulated as per the OTS Scheme within the said extended period. This being the case, I am of the view that this Court cannot compel the respondent bank to extend the benefit of OTS Scheme to the petitioner by extending the time limit for accepting payment under the scheme. This Court would be loath to force a contract on an unwilling respondent.

Accordingly, taking note of the default committed by the petitioner, including under the OTS Scheme, I am of the view that the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition, therefore, fails, and is accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd WP(C).No.9126 OF 2020(M) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 05/09/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R(1)(a) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2020 OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA WHEREBY THE OTS SCHEME IS EXTENDED EXT.R(1)(b) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.03.2020 WHICH WAS SENT BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R(1)(c) COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT