Disposed

Shajeer A.P v. The Manager

Kerala HC11 Jan 2024WP(C)/298/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A borrower facing SARFAESI coercive proceedings sought consideration of his One Time Settlement application by HDFC Bank. The Bank rejected the offered amount as below the outstanding dues; the court permitted a revised proposal and directed sympathetic consideration with permissible interest waivers.

What did the court decide?

Permission to submit a revised OTS proposal; Bank to consider it sympathetically with permissible interest waiver benefits.

Shajeer A.P Vs The Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SHAJEER A.P
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.MUSTHAFA KHADEEJAS VELIPARAMBA KURUMATHUR,
KARIMBAM KANNUR-, PIN – 670142

¶7

BY ADVS.
P.K.BABU
DIVYA B.NAIR
RAJASREE.R. (CHAITHANYA)

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE MANAGER
HDFC BANK LIMITED,
KVR TOWERS SOUTH BAZAR
KANNUR-, PIN – 670002

¶10

SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

WP(C) No.298 of 2024

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2024

¶16

The petitioner, who has availed financial assistance from the respondent-Bank, has approached this Court seeking to direct the respondent-Bank to consider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner under One Time Settlement Scheme within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶17

It is evident from the arguments that the petitioner approached this Court when the respondent-Bank initiated coercive proceedings invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The prayer of the petitioner is to consider Ext.P2 application for One Time Settlement.

¶18

Standing Counsel entered appearance and submitted that the total outstanding amount payable by the

¶19

¶20

WP(C) No.298 of 2024

¶21

petitioner is more than 48 lakhs. In Ext.P2 representation,₹ the petitioner has offered only 30 lakhs for settlement of the₹ account. As the outstanding amount is 48 lakhs, the amount₹ offered by the petitioner is not acceptable to the Bank and this matter was communicated to the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition has become infructuous, contends the Standing Counsel.

¶22

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Bank Authorities again with a revised One Time Settlement proposal. If the petitioner makes a revised proposal, the respondent-Bank shall consider the same sympathetically and extend all possible benefits on waiver of interest as is permissible under law.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.298 of 2024

¶27

¶28

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 298/2024

¶29

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶30

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
31.10.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32485/2023
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE OTS SCHEME
DATED 22/12/2023

Shajeer A.P v. The Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajeer A.P v. The Manager

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

Ajas T Vs Kerala Bank,Represented by Its Authorized Officer

K.K.Manoj Vs the Authorized Officer

Alex John Prasad Vs Union of India

Anil Ram Vs the Authorized Officer

Leelamma George Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Shaji K P, Vs Sundaram Home Finance Limited