J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner's request for extension of time to comply with the terms of one time settlement dated 20-06-2022 has been rejected. The petitioner availed a housing loan from the respondent bank and committed default in repayment. After proceedings were initiated the petitioner applied for one time settlement and through Ext.P9 produced along with I.A. No.1/2022 and the petitioner was permitted to clear the liability by paying a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- on or before 30-

06-2022.

2. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of the one time settlement in full. However, he paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 28-06-2022. The balance amount payable in terms of one time settlement is an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and the petitioner states that the petitioner will be in a position to pay that amount also along with any accrued interest and costs before 31-12-2022. It is submitted that since the petitioner has shown his bonafides by remitting a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- the petitioner may be permitted time till 31-12- 2022 to pay the balance amount granted under one time settlement. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of this court in Bindhu Vijayakumar v. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India and others; 2022 (1) KLT 656 to contend that in appropriate cases the court may be in a position to extend the time for payment of amounts due under an offer for one time settlement.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank vehementally opposes the grant of relief in this writ petition. He states that the bank itself has given time till 31-08-2022 to pay the amount under the one time settlement. It is submitted that a substantial reduction was given to the petitioner and an amount nearly Rs.33,00,000/- was waived while granting one time settlement. It is submitted that there are no special circumstances to extent the one time settlement.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent bank. This court in Bindhu Vijayakumar (supra) held as follows;

“11. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, which decision was not brought to the notice of this Court in Asokan Vasu’s case (supra), it can be held that under certain exceptional circumstances, a departure from the normal rule that the terms of settlement cannot be varied by Court under Article 226, is possible. The departure can be directed based upon the facts peculiar to each case and exceptional circumstances available, on a consideration of the entirety of the case.”

Though the learned counsel for respondent bank may be correct in contending that there are no special circumstances warranting extension of the period of one time settlement. However, taking into consideration of the fact that this is a housing loan and the petitioner had already remitted a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 28-06-2022, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted time till 31-12-2022 to make the payment of the balance amout due under the one time settlement offered to the petitioner through Ext.P9. This will however be subject to the condition that the petitioner pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the balance payable under the one time settlement till the date of payment. The last date of payment which is

31-12-2022 shall not be extended under any circumstances Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 174/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8.4.2021 IN WPC NO.5243/2020 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.1.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDL.

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM IN MC NO.695/2019 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING DIRECTION TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO IN RESPECT OF SARFAESI MEASURES TILL THE DISPOSAL OF SA NO.90/2020, FILED VIDE ID. NO.8391/2021 DATED

11/10/2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER D