Kerala High Court
WP(C)/12250/2025 of JAMALUDHEEN, Vs THE BRANCH MANAGER, on 27 March 2025
WP(C) NO. 12250 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12250 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: JAMALUDHEEN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. MOIDU, AREEKKARA HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA ROAD,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12250 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JAMALUDHEEN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. MOIDU, AREEKKARA HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA ROAD, ADUKKATH P.O., KUTTIADY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673508
BY ADV SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL
RESPONDENT/S:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,IDBI BANK LTD., KALPETTA, KALPETTA BUSINESS CENTRE, BYPASS JUNCTION, WAYANAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121
AUTHORISED SALE OFFICER, IDBI BANK LTD., KALPETTA, KALPETTA BUSINESS CENTRE, BYPASS JUNCTION, WAYANAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121
SMT. R REMA, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2025, 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 approached this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent bank to grant further time for making payment in terms of a One Time Settlement sanctioned to the petitioner by the respondent bank.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the One Time Settlement was offered under a specific scheme and the terms of that Scheme cannot be modified as requested for by the petitioner. It is submitted that, this Court cannot, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India modify the terms of One Time Settlement, going by the principles laid down by this Court in State Bank of India V. Sham; 2024 (6) KLT 865.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank is right in contending that, this Court cannot, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direct the bank to modify the terms of One Time Settlement offered to the petitioner. However, it will be open to the respondent bank to consider any request that may be made by the petitioner for modification of the terms of One Time Settlement.
Therefore, the writ petition will stand disposed of, directing that Exhibit P5 request made by the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by the competent Authority of the respondent bank, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment (if not already disposed of).
Writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12250/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF NOTICE DATED 30-01- 2023 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20-03-2024 IN WPC
Exhibit P 3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER DATED 27-09-
Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME DATED 13-02-2025 Exhibit P 5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21-03-2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT