Dismissed

Sri G D Chandramouli Reddy v. Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021WP/14367/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash a bank's rejection of his One-Time Settlement proposal. The Court held it cannot compel the bank to accept the offer via Article 226 and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no direction was given to the bank to consider the request letter.

Sri G D Chandramouli Reddy Vs Authorised Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.14367/2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G D CHANDRAMOULI REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.191, SAPTHA SINDU NILAYA G-BLOCK, 10TH CROSS KODEGEHALLI, 20TH MAIN SAHAKARANAGARA BANGALORE - 560 092

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.V.MOHAN, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

AUTHORISED OFFICER SREE SUBRAMANYESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD RAJATHA BHAVANA, NO.1-6 R V ROAD, R.V.PURAM BENGALURU - 560 004

¶13

THE JOINT REGISTRAR URBAN BANKS CELL OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALIASKER ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052

¶14

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA POST BOX NO.5467, 10/3/8

¶15

¶16

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE R1 UNTENABLE REPLY DATED 01.04.2021 ANNEXURE-A, REJECTING THE PETITIONERS ONE-TIME SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL OF HIS LOAN OUTSTANDING IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner has prayed for quashing first respondent's reply dated 1^st April, 2021 (Annexure-A) rejecting his OneTime Settlement (for short 'OTS) proposal of his loan and to direct the first Respondent-Bank to consider his request letter dated 24.03.2021.

¶23

The petitioner had enclosed a Demand Draft for Rs.40 Lakhs along with letter as upfront money and offered Rs.4.25 Crores as full and final settlement. The first Respondent -Bank has rejected the representation of the petitioner assigning certain reasons. OTS is a scheme in which lender exercises his discretion to receive less money than what is recoverable.

¶24

¶25

This Court cannot compel the Bank under Article

¶26

226 of the Constitution of India to accept the petitioner's proposal for OTS.

¶27

Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly

dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sri G D Chandramouli Reddy v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G D Chandramouli Reddy v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A G Vijendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Lingegowda L Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shivamma Vs State of Karnataka

Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sathish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Mayamma Vs the State of Karnataka