IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.18196/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. KALAVATHI W/O. SIDDARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.18, 2ND CROSS, SUBEDARPALYA, YESWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022.
(BY SRI KUMARASWAMY M, ADV.) AND:
SUVARNA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.62, SANJEEVAPPA LANE, AVENUE ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
(BY SRI KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER BY ITS LETTER DATED 10.12.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the representation dated 10.12.2015 as at Annexure-C to the petition. In that light, the petitioner is seeking that the respondent- Bank be directed not to dispossess from the premises as referred to in the petition.
2. The fact that the petitioner has availed certain financial assistance from the respondent-Bank is not in dispute. The fact that the amount is due and outstanding is also the accepted position inasmuch as the petitioner through the representation at Annexure-C has sought for one time settlement. Since the representation had not been considered and the respondents according to the petitioner was initiating action against her, the petitioner has approached this Court. This Court while directing notice to the respondent on 05.04.2016 had granted the interim order subject to the condition that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- be deposited. The said amount has been deposited and a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is also said to have been paid by the petitioner.
3. Though that is the position, the respondents through the objection statement and also the statement brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing would point out that the petitioner is due further amounts to the respondent-Bank. In that regard, the statement of account is referred and it is contended that a further sum is due. The fact that the amount is due in any event cannot be disputed though the quantum need not be decided herein.
4. Therefore the only issue for consideration herein is as to whether the respondent-Bank should be directed to consider the representation. As noticed, the petitioner has complied with the condition imposed by the interim order passed by this Court and in that view, the petitioner having shown the bona fides in making an attempt to settle the matter with the respondents, the respondent- Bank is required to take note of the representation submitted by the petitioner and take a decision as to whether any of the schemes available with the respondent-Bank is applicable to the case of the petitioner and as to whether the case of the petitioner could be considered for a settlement to be entered by the respondent-Bank.
5. In that light, since the representation as referred to in the petition is dated 10.12.2015 and there have been subsequent developments, it is appropriate that the petitioner be granted the liberty of filing a fresh representation to the respondent-Bank seeking consideration by the respondents towards settling the loan. If the representation is made by the petitioner to the respondent-Bank within three weeks from this date, the same shall be taken note and a consideration thereof be made. Until consideration is made and informed to the petitioner, no precipitative action shall be taken. However if the petitioner does not settle the matter with the respondent-Bank, the respondents may thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms