Kerala High Court
Gayathri.S vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940
WP(C).No. 4763 of 2019
PETITIONER:
GAYATHRI.S.,
AGED 32 YEARS
GEETHANJALI, MUKKOODU P.O, MULAVAN, KOLLAM PIN 691 503.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN
SMT.SHAZIA BINT ASHRAF
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 STATE LEVEL BANKERS COMMITTEE (SLBC)
REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, GENERAL MANAGER, SLBC CELL, CANARA
BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, M.G ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, SANGAMAM, GAS
HOUSE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.REP. BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER.
4 BAIJU KUMAR,
S/O. RAVINDRAN, RAVILASOM, THEKKUMKKARA, CHATHANNOOR,
THAZHAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 578.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN-SC, SRI. R.S.KALKURA-SC,
SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.02.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4763 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been listed for being 'spoken to' today (25.02.2019) at the request of Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank, who informed me, after the earlier judgment was delivered in this case, that the petitioner in this writ petition has, in fact, already approached the Committee constituted by the Government and that a decision has been taken by the said Committee, after hearing the petitioner, allowing either restructuring or One Time Settlement of the loan account. Sri.Jawahar Jose, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be directed to approach the Bank for a One Time Settlement since, as is clear from Ext.P5, the Bank is not ready for restructuring the account.
2. Sri.V.B.Harinarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that the Committee has given his client two options, namely, either to restructure the loan or to close it under a One Time Settlement and he says that in Ext.P5, however, the Bank did not consider restructuring of WP(C).No. 4763 of 2019 3 the account properly but has only offered the benefit of One Time Settlement, in spite of the recommendations of the Committee. He therefore, submitted that his client does not want to go back to the Committee, but that she may be given liberty to approach the Bank, to impress upon them her entitlement to either restructuring or One Time Settlement of the account.
3. Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel for the Bank, submitted that as is clear from Ext.P5, the benefit of restructuring has been denied because, one of the guarantors namely, the 4th respondent herein, is not willing to execute the security documents; and for the other, the value of the collateral property has now been reduced to one third of the original value. He adds that though not stated specifically in Ext.P5, the petitioner has other liabilities to Syndicate Bank, in excess of about Rs.15 Crores, and therefore, that the Bank is not sure whether she will be in a position to service the loan account, even if it is restructured.
4. Even when I hear Sri.Jawahar Jose as afore, the fact remains that the Committee constituted under the WP(C).No. 4763 of 2019 4 applicable Government Orders had given the petitioner the option of either restructuring or One Time Settlement of the account. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner must get an opportunity with the Bank to impress upon them, her entitlement to either of this and to choose whichever is beneficial to her.
5. Of course, this is only subject to the decision to be taken by the Bank with respect to the question of restructuring. I am certainly of the view, therefore, that the Bank must give one opportunity of impelling her entitlement before them in terms of the recommendations of the Committee and that such opportunity will only help both parties to resolve the issues amicably.
6. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank with a representation, seeking either restructuring of the account or One Time Settlement or both, as she may be advised, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the Bank will consider all her requests in terms of law and WP(C).No. 4763 of 2019 5 communicate the resultant order to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.
7. Needless to say and as has been undertaken by Sri.Jawahar Jose, the Bank will not conduct the sale of the secured assets now scheduled on 27.02.2019, until such time as the exercise as afore ordered is completed.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No. 4763 of 2019
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
07/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE G.O DATED 14/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE UNDER RULE 8(6) OF
THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES DATED 23/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE REVIVAL APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.