Kerala High Court: Alexander Thomas, J., considered a time extension sought by the petitioner for payment of the due amount and directed the petitioner to immediately disburse the loan amount to the respondent bank.
The petitioner approached the Bench for reclaiming the possession of the property from the respondent Bank upon clearing the loan amount along with further interest amount. The loan was provided to the petitioner under the One Time Settlement scheme however the petitioner failed to disburse the amount on the stated date under the scheme hence the respondent has claimed for an amount of higher figure.
The advocates representing the petitioner, V.K. Peermohamed Khan and V. Renjith submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay the due amount, mentioned in the possession notice, on or before 29-2-2020. They submitted the Court may direct the respondent Bank to close the loan account and the return the possession of the petitioner’s property along with the title deeds. The advocates also submitted that even though the time limit for disbursing the amount was exceeded by the petitioner, now that the petitioner is prepared to pay the erstwhile amount, the Court may kindly grant this benefit to the petitioner.
The standing counsel representing the respondent, A.S.P. Kurup submitted that since the petitioner had failed to pay the amount on the date provided under the one time settlement scheme, the petitioner is no longer subjected to the benefits under the scheme.
The Court upon perusal of the facts and records directed the petitioner to immediately approach the concerned respondent officials and seek an extension of time limit for paying off the amounts due under the erstwhile scheme. The Court stated that since the time extension sought for by the petitioner is not very long the respondent bank may sympathetically consider the plea of the petitioner. [P.H. Mohamed Ali v. Union Bank of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 521, decided on 06-02-2020]
