SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
UDAYABHANU.K – Appellant
Versus
KANNUR TOWN SERVICE CO-OP BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 46268 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
For the Respondents: C.LEENA, C.S SHEEJA (GP)

The Court permits debtors to approach banks for settlement under One Time Settlement schemes, suspending recovery proceedings during consideration of proposals.

Headnote:The Court analyzed the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent bank against the petitioner for recovery of a loan. The petitioner was found to be irregular in repayments amounting to approximately Rs.48 lakhs but had made part payment. The Court allowed the petitioner to propose a settlement under the One Time Settlement Scheme (2025-26). The Court directed that recovery proceedings shall remain suspended pending the consideration of the proposal by the bank's Competent Authority. If the settlement is granted, the petitioner shall comply with its terms.

Table of Content
1. challenge to recovery proceedings initiated by the bank. (Para 1)
2. petitioner’s irregular repayments and proposal for settlement. (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent bank to recover amounts due under a loan availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent bank.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the petitioner was highly irregular in repayment of the loan liability. It is submitted that the amounts payable by the petitioner is approximately Rs.48 lakhs. It is submitted that, the petitioner has complied with the condition imposed in the interim order dated 11.12.2025 and has remitted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the loan liability. It is submitted that presently there is a One Time Settlement Scheme in force (നവ കേ(cid:4)രളീയം കുടിശ്ശി(cid:4) നിവാരണ പദ്ധതി 2025-26) and the petitioner may be directed to approach the bank for settlement in terms of the said Scheme.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no objection in the writ petition being disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the bank for One Time settlement. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing that, if the petitioner were to submit a proposal for settlement under the 'നവ കേ(cid:4)രളീയം കുടിശ്ശി(cid:4) നിവാരണ പദ്ധതി 2025-26’ before the Competent Authority of the respondent bank within a period of two weeks from today, the said application shall be considered by the Competent Authority and the decision of the Competent Authority on the application to be submitted by the petitioner shall be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time as a decision is taken on the application to be submitted by the petitioner, as directed above, further recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall remain suspended. If One Time Settlement is granted to the petitioner, petitioner will be governed by the terms of the One Time Settlement scheme and the petitioner shall duly and faithfully comply with the terms of One Time Settlement.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top