Dismissed

Susamma Varghese, v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC5 Jun 2023WP(C)/11947/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by a petitioner who repaid a housing loan in instalments permitted by a prior court order, the Court held it cannot direct the respondent bank to grant a one-time settlement scheme benefit. The petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the bank for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to approach the second respondent with a representation seeking the benefit of the one-time settlement scheme, if eligible.

Susamma Varghese, Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP(C) No.11947 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 11947 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SUSAMMA VARGHESE,
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O. VARGHESE, CHAKKUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, KAVUNGUMPRAAR
P.O., PURAMATTOM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.689543
BY ADVS.
SANIL JOSE
K.P.ANTONY BINU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1STATE BANK OF INDIA,
VENNIKULAM BRANCH, VENNIKULAM P.O., THIRUVALLA-
689544 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶11

2THE BRANCH MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, VENNIKULAM BRANCH, VENNIKULAM
P.O., THIRUVALLA., PIN - 689544
BY ADVS.
DEEPA NARAYANAN
T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C) No.11947 of 2023

¶15

C.S DIAS,J.

¶16

WP(C) No.11947 of 2023

¶17

----------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to

¶20

permit the petitioner to avail one time settlement scheme, if she is otherwise eligible.

¶21

The petitioner’s case is that, she had availed a housing loan from the second respondent – Bank - by creating an equitable mortgage. Due to reasons beyond

¶22

her control, she could not pay off the instalments within the stipulated time period. The second respondent has proceeded against the secured asset under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

¶23

¶24

WP(C) No.11947 of 2023

¶25

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner approached this Court and

¶26

filed WP(C)No.15270/2022, which was disposed of by Ext P1 judgment, permitting the petitioner to pay off the outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments. The petitioner paid off the entire loan amount. But, has not been granted the benefit of one time settlement scheme. Hence, the writ petition.

¶27

Heard; Sri.Sanil Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Deepa Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶28

Smt.Deepa Narayanan, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner was permitted by this Court to pay off the overdue amount in ten equated monthly instalments commencing from 15.7.2022. Pursuant to

¶29

¶30

WP(C) No.11947 of 2023

¶31

Ext P1 judgment, the petitioner paid off the entire loan amount and security documents have been returned to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for claiming one time settlement scheme benefit.

¶32

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the submission made by the

¶33

learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of

¶34

the definite view that it is not for this Court to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner any benefit under the one time settlement scheme. It would be up to the petitioner to approach the second respondent and submit a representation. If the same is submitted, the second respondent shall consider and dispose of the representation.

¶35

¶36

WP(C) No.11947 of 2023

¶37

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without

¶38

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the second respondent with her representation seeking the benefit of the one time settlement scheme if she is eligible. If the representation is submitted, the second respondent shall consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

¶39

SD/-

¶40

sks/5.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C) No.11947 of 2023

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11947/2023

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
24/6/2022 IN W.P.(C).NO.15270/2022 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22/3/2023 ISSUED BY THE BANK
Exhibit P3TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27/3/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT

Susamma Varghese, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susamma Varghese, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safeer M. B., Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Chennam Kulangara Sulaiman Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Daniel Jayapaul, Vs State of Kerala

Jose M Panikkulam Vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank

Shibu M., Vs Authorised Officer

Jinesh E J Vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd., No. 55