K.P.UMASANKAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a guarantor in respect of a loan availed by a proprietary concern named 'PBT Spices' of which one Thankappan was the proprietor. The aforesaid proprietary concern had availed a loan of Rs.11,70,000.00 from the respondent bank in the year 2006. The said loan became a Non Performing Asset, leading to initiation of proceedings by the bank under the SARFAESI Act. Those proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal through S.A. No.799/2010 which is still pending consideration of the Tribunal. The bank, thereafter, filed O.A. No.292/2012, for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,32,308.00 along with future interest and costs from the aforesaid proprietary concern. The said O.A. is also pending consideration before the Tribunal.

(2.) While matters stood thus, at the instance of the petitioner, the respondent bank granted an offer for One Time Settlement, permitting closure of the loan account on payment of Rs.7,02,116.00. This was on 30/3/2019. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.4,50,000.00was paid on 30/3/2019 itself towards the One Time Settlement and the balance payable was Rs.2,52,116.00. This amount had to be paid within 45 days from 30/3/2019 as per the terms of the letter sanctioning One Time Settlement. The time for payment would therefore run till 15/5/2019. On 8/5/2019, the original borrower died. The petitioner, thereupon requested the bank to extend the time for payment of the balance amount under One Time Settlement, which came to be rejected through the document marked as Ext.R1(b) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent bank before this Court. The petitioner disputes the receipt of Ext.R1(b), though the said communication appears to have been sent by registered post; acknowledgment due. The petitioner submits that despite all efforts to make the bank accept the request for extending the time for balance payment, the bank refused to accede to the request and therefore the petitioner was forced to approach this Court through this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Sri. P. Viswanathan, learned Senior counsel, instructed by Sri. S M. Prasanth, appearing for the petitioner, would point out the facts of the case and would submit that the action of the bank in refusing to extend the time limit for payment under One Time settlement offer is arbitrary and illegal. He refers to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Bindu Vijayakumar V. Regional Manager, SBI, Kollam and Others [2022(1) KHC 394], where this Court, on consideration of various judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijayakumari P. and Another V. Indian Bank represented by its Chief Manager [AIR 2018 SC 759], held as follows:-