Dismissed

E.M. Iqubal v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Kerala HC14 Feb 2020WP(C)/2061/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to accept a One Time Settlement proposal after defaulting on loans and facing SARFAESI action. The Court held that accepting such a proposal involves contractual terms and mortgage conditions, which are within the Bank's realm, not the Court's. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed holding the High Court cannot direct the bank to accept the One Time Settlement proposal.

E.M. Iqubal Vs Punjab and Sind Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2061 OF 2020(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

E.M. IQUBAL AGED 54 YEARS S/O. EBRAHIMKUTTY, SUNEER NIVAS, ARAFA NAGAR 6, VADAKKEVILA P.O, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM-691 010

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, GROUND FLOOR, R.K. COMPLEX, VADAYATTUKOOTA, KOLLAM-691 001

¶11

ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW ADV. SRI.DENU JOSEPH ADV. SHRI.BIBIN BABU

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.2061 OF 2020(G) 2

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 14th day of February 2020

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article

¶17

226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction to the respondent Bank to take decision on Ext.P6 One Time Settlement proposal dated 15.1.2020. The petitioner had taken two loans of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs and had defaulted, resulting into initiation of action under the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued in the month of July, 2018. However, when the possession notices were obtained on 3.1.2020, the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal of Kerala by filing Securitization Applications, which were dismissed vide order dated 21.9.2019. The petitioner is not in a position to deposit the requisite amount. The petitioner wants to settle the accounts

¶18

WP(C).No.2061 OF 2020(G) 3

¶19

with the Bank and in this background of the matter, he had

¶20

submitted a proposal, Ext.P6.

¶21

The learned counsel for the Bank submits that

¶22

there is no procedure or any scheme or circular for accepting

¶23

the One Time Settlement proposal.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a direction in the manner and mode as has been sought. Whether the Bank accepts the One Time Settlement proposal

¶25

tantamounts to the terms and conditions of the loan as well as

¶26

the mortgage. It is purely within the realm of the Bank or in

¶27

view of any promulgation of the circular, proposals are

¶28

mooted from the Bank with regard to the One Time

¶29

Settlement. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE

¶32

ACM

¶33

WP(C).No.2061 OF 2020(G) 4

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 13(2) NOTICE DATED 02.07.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21.07.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLAY ON OBJECTION DATED 20.09.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONERS NOTICE DATED 03.01.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONERS NOTICE DATED 03.01.2020. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE TIME PROPOSAL DATED 15.01.2020.

E.M. Iqubal v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.M. Iqubal v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johnson and Company, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Ollukkara Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the Income Tax Officer

Roy, Vs Authorised Officer, Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.55

Benny Vs Dewan Housing Finance Corporate Ltd.

Afithkumar, Vs Authorised Officer

Dileep K.U. Vs Syndicate Bank Ltd.