Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM
Albin Paul, S/o. Poulose T.A. – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Financial Corporation, Represented By Its Chairman And Managing Director, Office Of The KFC, Vellayambalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of one time settlement and payments made. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contestation of kfc's claim on the loan settlement. (Para 4) |
| 3. court’s observation on the validity of settlement claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Since both these writ petitions challenge the very same proceedings they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioner along with two others started a firm in the year 2015. A financial assistance to the tune of Rs.16,94,000/- was availed from the Kerala Financial Corporation, which is an interest free loan for a period of five years. The remittance of the principal amount was defaulted by the petitioner. Recovery proceedings were initiated and Ext.P1 order of attachment was effected on the properties hypothecated by the petitioner. While so, Ext.P2 notice was issued intimating that the persons who intend to settle the loan by way of one time settlement has to reach the concerned branch before 18th April to 21st April. Pursuant to Ext.P2 notice the managing partner of the firm has sent Ext.P3 letter informing that he will be appearing before the adalath to be held on 08.05.2018. Subsequently in July 2018 the 2nd respon
The acceptance of payments under a one-time settlement scheme, despite lack of formal approval, raises issues that require independent examination by a competent authority, specifically regarding the....
Repeated non-compliance with court-ordered payments disentitles borrowers to further equitable relief in writ jurisdiction.
Point of law: Proceedings initiated by Recovery Officer to bring properties in question to sale are in consonance with provisions of Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961.
Borrowers cannot demand specific benefits under One Time Settlement schemes if they fail to properly engage in the process; such benefits are discretionary and not a right.
The court upheld that distinct loan accounts cannot compel funds adjustment between them under OTS agreements.
The court emphasizes the necessity for banks to consider One Time Settlement applications while defining terms for repayment of dues.
Withdrawal of recovery notices eliminates the need for further judicial intervention in the property attachment disputes.
The acceptance of a One Time Settlement Proposal does not absolve the debtor of liabilities across different branches of the bank, and the bank may initiate recovery from the main branch as per the m....
One Time Settlement applications must be considered by banks to avoid arbitrary recovery actions.
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
