Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, S.MANU
State Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Sham P.S., S/O. Shahul Hameed – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.MANU, J.
The question arising in these appeals concerns scope of interference in writ petitions pleading for grant of the benefits of One Time Settlement Schemes (hereinafter referred to as 'OTS Schemes'). Appellant in all these appeals is the State Bank of India. The Bank is deeply aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge extending the benefits of OTS Schemes to the party Respondents in spite of the lapses in discharging their obligations under the Scheme. The Appellant Bank contends that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are inconsistent with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We proceed to dispose all appeals by this common judgment as the basic issue to be decided is common.
2. We will refer to the facts of the cases at first.
W.A.No.1275/2024
3. Respondent in W.A.No.1275/2024 had availed two loan facilities of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of running business. He had offered the residential property in his name as security for availing the aforementioned two loan facilities from the Bank. When the Respondent committed default, the Bank initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and also filed Origina
Borrowers must comply with One Time Settlement terms to claim benefits; courts cannot interfere with banks' discretion in such matters.
Courts cannot compel banks to provide benefits of One Time Settlement Schemes if borrowers fail to meet payment obligations under the scheme, preserving the contractual sanctity and banks' discretion....
(1) No borrower can, as a matter of right, pray for grant of benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme.(2) No bank can be compelled to accept a lesser amount under OTS Scheme despite the fact that Bank i....
Point of law: Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money generated at the taxpayer’s expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its ....
The High Court cannot mandate a bank to grant One Time Settlement benefits not compliant with established terms or after scheme expiration.
Point of Law : The terms of one-time settlement scheme cannot also be interfered with or varied to the advantage or disadvantage of any person by resorting to the powers under Article 226 of the Cons....
Banks are not mandated to disclose benchmarks or consider OTS proposals, and courts cannot compel alteration of existing financial agreements under Article 226.
No borrower has a vested right to compel a bank to accept a One Time Settlement, as banks retain discretion in recovery matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
