Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12418
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
THOMAS JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 19261/2012
The absence of a binding agreement between the parties prevents a court from enforcing a settlement in liability disputes.
Headnote:
Settlements - Bank Liabilities - SARFAESI Act - Section 13
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had three bank accounts, one classified as NPA, and claimed the bank was willing to settle a total liability of Rs.1.94 crore for Rs.1.60 crore. The petitioner paid Rs.1.25 crore but sought the return of title deeds upon payment of the remaining Rs.35 lakh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no agreement from the bank to settle the liability for Rs.1.60 crore, only a willingness to consider the proposal. Therefore, the court could not order the bank to release the title deeds.
Issues: Whether the bank agreed to settle the liability at Rs.1.60 crore, and if so, did the court have the authority to compel the bank to accept the settlement and release the title deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of a binding agreement from the bank to settle the liability at the proposed amount precluded enforcement of the settlement terms sought by the petitioner.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of; the bank must communicate its decision on the proposal.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner states that he had 3 accounts in the respondent Bank.
One of the account was classified as NPA and SARFAESI proceedings were initiated. According to him, although total liability was Rs.1.94,00,000/-, the 2nd respondent intimated him his willingness to settle the liability for Rs.1,60,00,000/-. It is stated that accordingly he has already remitted Rs.1,25,00,000/-. In this writ petition what the petitioner states is that on his paying the balance amount of Rs.35 lakhs, the Bank should release the title deeds deposited by him. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed.
2. However the petitioner has not produced any evidence showing the agreement on the part of the Bank to settle the liability accepting Rs.1,60,00,000/-On the other hand counsel for the Bank submits before this court that although this offer was made by the petitioner, the Bank did not agree to settle the liability as claimed by him. Further even in Ext.P6, Bank has only expressed its willingness to consider the proposal of the petitioner.
WPC.No. 19261/2012 :2 :
3. Therefore, in the absence of any material indicating an agreement on the part of the Bank to settle the liability at Rs.1,60,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioner, this court cannot direct the Bank to accept Rs.35 lakhs and release the title deeds submitted by him.
4. Be that as it may, since Ext.P6 shows that the Bank has agreed to consider the proposal, it shall intimate its decision on the proposal to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from today.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE vi/
WPC.No. 19261/2012 :3 :
