T. Shahul Hameed v. The State Bank of India and The Authorised Officer, SBI Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Thiruvananthapuram; The State Bank of India, Pattanakkad Branch
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Gopinath P.
- Judgment Date
- 2022-11-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- Taking note of the above submission and without going further into the merits of the contentions, this writ petition is ordered directing that, if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1,58,391/- on or before 30-11-2022, the loan account in respect of which the petitioner is a guarantor will be closed and all further proceedings will be dropped.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed; if the petitioner pays Rs.1,58,391 by 30-11-2022, the loan account will be closed and all further proceedings dropped.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- T. Shahul Hameed
Respondents
- The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, LMS Compound, Opp. Museum West Gate, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695033
- State Bank of India, Pattanakkad Branch, Represented by Branch Manager, Pattanakkad P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha, PIN-688531
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • B. Pramod
Counsels for Respondents
- • Jawahar Jose
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition (WP(C) No.23937 of 2022) filed in the Kerala High Court by T. Shahul Hameed, guarantor of a loan taken by his father, challenges the bank’s handling of a One Time Settlement (OTS) under SBI’s Rinn Samadhan Scheme. The sanction letter (Ext.P3, dated 13.12.2021) required staged payment: 10% initially, another 10% by 60 days, followed by the balance within four months with interest at MCLR. The petitioner argues substantial compliance: he remitted Rs.10.5 lakhs on 08.07.2022 and contends the remaining shortfalls arose due to his children’s hospitalisation. He cites Bindhu Vijayakumar v. Regional Manager, SBI, Kollam (2022 (1) KHC 394) to urge maintenance of OTS benefits despite delays. The bank counters that OTS is a contractual arrangement; default defeats the benefit, and relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State Bank of India v. Aravinda Electronics Pvt. Ltd (Civil Appeal No.6454/2022) contends Bindhu Vijayakumar’s approach is no longer valid. The court, after considering the submissions and the Aravinda Electronics decision, does not resolve merits on the broader OTS policy but issues a limited relief: if the petitioner pays Rs.1,58,391 by 30-11-2022, the loan account will be treated as settled, and all further proceedings will be dropped. The petition is disposed accordingly.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the OTS benefits should be extended in light of the scheme’s terms and his attempts to comply, including remitting Rs.10.5 lakhs and the hospitalisation of his children which prevented timely payments on 14-02-2022 and 14-03-2022. He argues substantial compliance and reliance on Bindhu Vijayakumar (supra) to secure relief, urging that the bank exercise its discretion in his favour and avoid immediate forfeiture of the OTS benefit.
Contentions of Respondents
The bank contends that OTS is a contract; any default voids the benefit, with no exceptional circumstances warranting extension. It relies on the sanction letter and the terms that require timely payment, and points to Bindhu Vijayakumar as no longer good law following the Supreme Court’s decision in Aravinda Electronics. It seeks that the account not be settled except through strict compliance, save for a limited concession if the petitioner makes a specified further payment.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bindhu Vijayakumar v. Regional Manager, SBI, Kollam and Others | 2022 (1) KHC 394 | Overruled | The Kerala High Court notes that the Bindhu Vijayakumar decision is no longer good law in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in State Bank of India v. Aravinda Electronics Pvt. Ltd (Civil Appeal No.6454/2022), and thus treats Bindhu Vijayakumar as overruled within this context. |
| State Bank of India v. Aravinda Electronics Pvt. Ltd | Civil Appeal No.6454/2022 | Positive | Cited by the bank to indicate controlling law post-Aravinda Electronics; the Supreme Court decision is used to argue that Bindhu Vijayakumar’s rationale is not applicable and to frame the current judgment, though the court grants a limited remedy based on equity. |
| W.P.(C) 29200/2021 | W.P.(C) 29200/2021 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P2 references a prior judgment in this court (W.P.(C) No. 29200/2021); it is cited as background material, not as binding authority for the present decision. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against T. Shahul Hameed v. The State Bank of India and The Authorised Officer, SBI Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Thiruvananthapuram; The State Bank of India, Pattanakkad Branch and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.