Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56404
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
JOHN T.T. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/30857/2021
VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE, ALBIN A. JOSEPH, GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SRI.BIMAL K NATH
Banks are required to process settlement requests in accordance with their established procedures and guidelines.
Headnote:
Settlement - Bank Liabilities - Relevant Banking Norms - The court directed the bank to consider the petitioners' request for One Time Settlement (OTS) in accordance with existing banking schemes and norms, ensuring administrative fairness in the handling of the petitioners' claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought One Time Settlement for their bank liabilities, but were told their requests were not in line with the current bank scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the bank should consider the petitioners' requests as per existing schemes and required the bank to provide a decision on the OTS proposals during their scheduled meeting.
Issues: Whether the bank is obligated to consider the petitioners' requests for One Time Settlement under existing banking schemes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the bank to act according to its own established norms and procedures in dealing with settlement requests.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions are disposed of with directions for appropriate actions by the Bank.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached the bank with a request for One Time Settlement of the liabilities.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank points out that the requests made are not in accordance with the scheme presently in vogue.
3. It would be sufficient if the Bank considers the requests made by the petitioners in accordance with the existing scheme and passes appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the scheme and the norms. The petitioners shall approach the Bank at 11 am on 21.01.2022 and the Bank shall hand over the orders passed on the OTS requests to the petitioners, on obtaining due acknowledgment.
The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE sd APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30859/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.10.2021 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.10.2021 WHICH INDICATES THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD APPEAR IN AN ADALATH ORGANISED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.12.2021 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL DATED 14/01/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30857/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.2021 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
01.12.2021 WHICH INDICATES THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD APPEAR IN AN ADALATH ORGANISED BY TH TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, UDUMBANCHOLA.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.12.2021 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
