Kerala High Court
WP(C)/15532/2025 of MOHAMMED NOOHU ZINBAD Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER on 10 April 2025
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 15532 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: MOHAMMED NOOHU ZINBAD AGED 56 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED NOOHU VAYALIL VEEDU VETOOR VILLAGE VETOOR P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15532 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
MOHAMMED NOOHU ZINBAD
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED NOOHU VAYALIL VEEDU VETOOR VILLAGE
VETOOR P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695312
BY ADVS.
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
M.KIRANLAL
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR
AASHI K. SHAJAN
KEZIL THOTTUKADAVIL CHERIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
SOUTH INDIAN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE 3RD FLOOR YWCA
M.G.ROAD SPENCER JN.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B.J.JOHN PRAKASH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has availed a credit facility from the respondent bank. On default being committed, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner approached the bank with the proposal for One Time Settlement and thereafter filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “1. To issue a Writ, Direction, or order in Mandamus directing the respondents to grant reasonable time to the petitioner for enabling them to repay the loan amount in OTS Scheme
2. To issue a Writ, Direction, or order in Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Ext.P3 representation within a reasonable time.”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the total liabilities are in excess of Rs.2 Crores and the proposal submitted by the petitioner for One Time Settlement was for Rs.1.35 Crores. It is submitted that the said proposal is not accepted by the bank and therefore, the proposal has already been rejected . It is submitted that if the petitioner makes a fresh proposal for One
Time Settlement along with substantial upfront payment, this matter can be considered by the competent authority of the respondent bank. It is submitted that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are under the stage of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank and having regard to the submissions made as above, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing if the petitioner submits a fresh proposal for one time settlement together with an upfront payment of Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 05.05.2025. The competent authority of the respondent bank shall consider such a proposal and take a decision on the proposal. Till such time, the decision is taken on the fresh proposal to be submitted by the petitioner as above, further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act shall remain suspended.
sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE Scl/
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15532/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT NO.0139656000000085 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.02.2025 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION TO THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 24.03.2025