VASU COCO RESORTS PVT.LTD v.

THE AUTHORIZED
OFFICER
casemine.com/judgement/in/6365685fa73d095233c20dcb

Header page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 34125 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

1 VASU COCO RESORTS PVT.LTD,

REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR

MR. PRASHANTH VASUDEVAN,

AGED 45 YEARS,

S/O DR P VASUDEVAN, VP II/326 BM , VAYALAR CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA,

2 MR . PRASHANTH VASUDEVAN,

AGED 45 YEARS,

S/O DR.P. VASUDEVAN,

HOUSE NO.223, GAUTHAM BUDDHA NAGAR

NEAR 15A CLUB, SECTOR 15A,

NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 201 301.

BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH,

1/4
1127, RAJA PLAZA AVINASHI ROAD,

COIMBATORE, PIN - 641 037.

2 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

STATE BANK OF INDIA

STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH,

7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWER,

PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 024.

BY ADV TOM K.THOMAS

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this court seeking the following reliefs:

i) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
permit the extent OTS facility, following the dictum in Bindu Vijayakumar v. Regional
Manger, SBI, Kollam and Others [2022(1) KHC 394] and the OTS may be extended to
the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

ii) To stay all further recovery proceedings under pursuant to Ext.P9 proceedings, till the
OTS facility once granted to the petitioner is revived and extended, in the interest of
justice.

iii) Dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the
judgment of this Court in Bindu Vijayakumar v. Regional Manger, SBI, Kollam and
Others reported in 2022(1) KHC 394 is authority for the

proposition that the terms of the OTS can be modified and the time for payment can be
extended by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioners were offered an OTS
by Ext.P1, through which the petitioners were permitted to settle the liability by paying a
total amount of approximately Rs.44.50 crores. It is the submission of the learned counsel

2/4
for the petitioners that the petitioners remitted a sum of Rs.1.90 Crores on 20.11.2020. It
is submitted that the petitioners remitted a further sum of Rs.1.50 Crores on 05.04.2022.
It is submitted that though the petitioners have approached the Bank for extension of
time, there was no positive response from the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the
properties of the petitioners have been scheduled to be sold by auction. It is submitted
that the petitioners have given a fresh proposal for One Time Settlement today to the
respondent Bank. It is submitted that absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the
respondent Bank if the terms of the One Time Settlement granted by Ext.P1 are modified
by extending the time for payment and by providing that further interest will be payable on
the OTS amount by the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank vehemently opposes the grant
of any relief to the petitioners. It is pointed out that the total liability of the petitioners as on
date is nearly Rs.90 crores. It is submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court
at a time when the properties of the petitioners have been put up for sale and only with
the view to delay or stall the recovery proceedings by bringing the properties to sale. It is
submitted that this Court in Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Emil and
Eric Hospitality Services and Others

[2021(6) KHC 411] has taken the view that it is improper for the court to interfere in
proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act or any other similar legislation at the time
when the properties are put to sale as they would result in recovery proceedings being
defeated, as genuine buyers may be discouraged to take part in the auction on account of
the pending litigation. It is submitted that there are two bidders for the properties in
question and any interference by this Court at this stage will only result in those bidders
being discouraged to take part in the auction. It is submitted that considering the huge
liabilities, the Bank may be permitted to proceed with the recovery steps now initiated.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply would submit that the petitioners have
filed S.A.No.530 of 2022 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Ernakulam and the
same is pending consideration of the Tribunal.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent Bank, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any
exceptional case warranting the application of law laid down by this Court in Bindu
Vijayakumar supra. It is clear from a reading of that judgment that the grant of OTS is
completely within the discretion of the Bank / Financial institution and the terms of such
grant cannot be normally varied by the Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the
petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. Keeping in view the
observations of this Court in Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd supra, it is
improper for this Court to interfere in the proceedings at a stage when the properties are

3/4
notified for sale. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly
dismissed, making in clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the
petitioners from prosecuting S.A.No.530 of 2022 before the Debts

Recovery Tribunal - II, Ernakulam. If the petitioners wish to prosecute any proposal for
One Time Settlement, the petitioners shall submit an application for One Time Settlement
within a period of ten days from today together with an upfront payment of 10% of the
One Time Settlement amount for such proposal to be considered.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

DK

4/4