Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ots scheme in The Regionalmanager, State Bank Of ... vs Bindu Vijayakumar on 2 February, 2022Matching Fragments
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Instant writ appeal is filed by the appellants/respondents in the writ petition, being aggrieved by the judgment in W.P. (C)No.19672/2021 dated 3.1.2022 directing the second respondent in the writ petition (Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, LMS compound, Near Museum West Gate, Vikas Bahvan P O, Thiruvananthapuram) to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 representations filed by the petitioner, in the light of the observations contained in the impugned judgment and grant a limited extension of time for repayment of the balance amount under the sanctioned OTS Scheme after imposing a reasonable percentage of interest on the balance amount due from the petitioner from 30.7.2021 till date of payment and also the period within which the said payment must be made by the petitioner. W.A.NO.163 OF 2022 :: 2 ::
2. Assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment, Mr.Jawahar Jose, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants - Bank, inter alia, submitted that the judgment is contrary to the OTS Scheme, on the basis of which the respondent was directed to pay the instalment. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the OTS Scheme automatically expires on the date of failure of the payment of any one of the instalments.
3. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment observed that there was a total lock down in Kerala from 8-5-2021 to 8-7-2021. But as per Annexures A2 to A5 Government Orders, the lockdown was partial and not complete. According to the Standing Counsel the interregnum lockdown between 8-5-2021 to 9-6-
Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the scope of 'impossibility' of performance of contract as stipulated in Section 56 of the Contract Act.
5. Mr.V.Gopan, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that due to lockdown, he could not run the business and thus did no pay the third instalment as per the OTS Scheme. However, he paid Rs.15,00,000/- in two instalments. The balance amount as per the OTS Scheme as on 30.7.2021 was Rs.65,80,341/-. Though the respondent/writ petitioner made continuous representations to the Bank as well as to the Grievance Cell to address the non payment of OTS amount and to grant extension, there was no response. Thus, respondent/writ petitioner was constrained to prefer the writ petition.