Kerala High Court
Aravindaksha Menon vs The Reserve Bank Of India on 8 April, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1948
W.A.NO.864 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2026 IN WP(C)
NO.10255 OF 2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ARAVINDAKSHA MENON
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANA MENON, ATHIKKUZHI HOUSE,
NADAKKAV P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682307
BY ADV SRI.C.N. SAMEER
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER IN
CHARGE, DEPARTMENT OF PAYMENT AND SETTLEMENT
SYSTEMS,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 14TH FLOOR,
SHAHID BHAGATH SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI
E-MAIL ID- [email protected], PIN - 400001
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER
CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE, CANARA BANK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 2
4 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
CANARA BANK, RECOVERY & LEGAL SECTION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO STATION BUILDING,
IIIRD FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, ERTNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
5 THE MANAGER
CANARA BANK, TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH,
TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301
BY SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNA NAMBIAR, SC, CANARA BANK
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 3
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.10255 of 2026, invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 2 to
5, namely, the General Manager, the Regional Manager and the
Authorised Officer of Canara Bank to consider the requests
pending before them; and a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd
respondent Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Ernakulam to
intimate the appellant-petitioner the date of remitting the
remaining amount of Rs.10,80,000/-, forthwith.
2. The pleadings and materials on record would show that
the appellant-petitioner, along with his wife, availed a housing
loan of Rs.21,50,000/- from the Tripunithura Branch of Canara
Bank by mortgaging the property owned by the petitioner, having
an extent of 1.66 Ares in Re.Sy.No.500/8 in Manakunnam Village,
covered by a sale deed bearing No.686/2020 of the Sub Registrar
Office, Tripunithura.
2.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 4
petitioner made a total repayment of Rs.2,67,891.51 as on
13.04.2023. On 17.03.2023, the petitioner met with a road
accident, who had undergone three major surgeries. After the
aforesaid payments, the petitioner made a further payment of
Rs.2,23,847.47 in the loan account. On account of the default in
payment of monthly installments, the loan account was classified
as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and the 4th respondent
Authorised Officer of the Bank issued statutory notices under the
provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (SARFAESI Act).
The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of the account
statement of the housing loan for the period from 13.01.2021 till
13.02.2025. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner’s
son-in-law died on 04.05.2025 due to cardiac arrest.
2.2. Seeking the assistance of the Court to take physical
possession of the secured asset, the Bank and its Authorised
Officer moved the First Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Ernakulam in M.C.No.444 of 2025, invoking the provisions
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and obtained an order
appointing an Advocate Commissioner for taking physical
possession of the secured asset. On 12.08.2025, the petitioner
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 5
remitted an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in the loan account, as
evidenced by Ext.P2 receipt.
2.3. The petitioner’s wife, who is a co-borrower, had
approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.34243 of 2025, seeking a
writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 02.06.2025 of the First
Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in
M.C.No.444 of 2025 and for other consequential reliefs. That writ
petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 23.09.2025,
relegating the petitioner therein to invoke Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, and it was ordered that further proceedings
against her shall be deferred for a period of one month.
Paragraphs 2 to 4 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P3 judgment
in W.P.(C)No.34243 of 2025 read thus;
“2. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that
the loan was recalled on 15.05.2025 and as on
22.09.2025, the total outstanding amount is
Rs.23,62,970/- (Rupees twenty three lakh sixty two
thousand nine hundred and seventy only). Since the loan
has been recalled, the Bank is not willing to regularise the
loan account. This is recorded.
3. Under such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner
is to invoke Section 17 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act.
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 6
4. To enable the petitioner to avail of the same, all further
proceedings against the petitioner will stand deferred for a
period of one month.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.”
2.4. The petitioner along with his wife filed S.A.No.711 of
2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. On
27.10.2025, the Tribunal granted an interim order directing the
Bank and its Authorised Officer to defer taking physical
possession of the secured asset till 18.11.2025, subject to the
applicants depositing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with the Bank,
towards the outstanding amount in the loan account, on or before
17.11.2025. The applicants have complied with the condition
stipulated in the said order of the Tribunal, as evidenced by
Ext.P4 receipt dated 15.11.2025. Even prior to the filing of
S.A.No.711 of 2025 by the borrowers, the Bank recalled the loan
and filed O.A.No.547 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
in which, notice was ordered to the borrowers on 25.07.2025. In
the said original application, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.10255 of
2026 and his wife entered appearance on 18.12.2025. The
documents marked as Exts.P5, P6 are representations dated
29.12.2025 made by the petitioner before the 5th respondent
Manager and the 3rd respondent Regional Manager of Canara
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 7
Bank to close the loan account by availing the benefit of one time
settlement (OTS). The said representations were followed by
Ext.P8 representation dated 12.01.2026 made before the 3rd
respondent Regional Manager for availing the benefit of OTS, on
payment of Rs.10,00,000/-. Ext.P8 representation was followed
by Ext.P10 representation dated 27.01.2026 made before the 2nd
respondent General Manager and Ext.P11 representation dated
30.01.2026 made before the Chief General Manager of the 1st
respondent Reserve Bank of India. In the writ petition, it is
averred that the 3rd respondent Regional Manager of Canara Bank
agreed to settle the loan account for Rs.12,00,000/- and as a
precondition for settlement, the petitioner was asked to remit
Rs.1,20,000/- towards 1/10th of the said amount. Accordingly, the
petitioner’s wife remitted an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on
11.02.2026, as evidenced by Ext.P12 statement of account. To
Ext.P11 representation dated 30.01.2026 made before the Chief
General Manger of the 1st respondent Reserve Bank of India, the
petitioner received Ext.P13 reply dated 26.02.2026, wherein it is
stated that the Reserve Bank has classified the complaint made
by the petitioner as not maintainable in view of the provisions
contained in Clause 10(2)(b)(ii) of the Reserve Bank-Integrated
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 8
Ombudsman Scheme. It is thereafter that the petitioner has
chosen to file W.P.(C)No.10255 of 2026 before this Court seeking
the reliefs stated hereinbefore at the first paragraph.
3. On 19.03.2026, when W.P.(C)No.10255 of 2026 came
up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Canara Bank
for respondents 2 to 5 submitted that the OTS request made by
the petitioner is pending consideration before the Bank and that,
the petitioner has also remitted a substantial amount for
consideration of the same. The learned Standing Counsel has also
submitted that no coercive action will be taken against the
petitioner till the disposal of his OTS request. In the light of the
above submissions, the learned Single Judge found that nothing
survives for consideration in the writ petition and hence the writ
petition was dismissed. Paragraph 3 and also the last paragraph
of the judgment dated 19.03.2026 in W.P.(C)No.10255 of 2026
read thus;
“3. The learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 5
submitted that, the OTS request filed by the petitioner is
under consideration before the Bank and that, the petitioner
has also remitted a substantial amount for consideration of
the same. He also submitted that, no coercive action will be
taken against the petitioner, till the disposal of his OTS
request.
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 9In the light of the above submissions, I am of the view that,
nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.”
4. Challenging the judgment dated 19.03.2026 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.10255 of 2026, the appellant-
petitioner has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
and also the learned Standing Counsel for Canara Bank for
respondents 2 to 5.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would
contend that the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2026 of the
learned Single Judge is one rendered without taking note of the
legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner. Having
remitted a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 11.02.2026, as evidenced by
Ext.P12 statement of account, the appellant-petitioner has a
legitimate expectation of the Bank settling the loan account for
Rs.12,00,000/-. The contentions raised by the petitioner with
specific reference to ground ‘G’ of the writ petition was not even
considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing
W.P.(C)No.10255 of 2026.
7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 10
Canara Bank would contend that the impugned judgment dated
19.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge, which was one rendered
after taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the Bank
regarding the OTS request made by the appellant-petitioner,
warrants no interference in this intra-court appeal.
8. As already noticed hereinbefore, the appellant-petitioner
filed W.P.(C)No.10255 of 2026, invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to
5 to consider the requests pending before them; and a writ of
mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to intimate the
appellant-petitioner the date of remitting the remaining amount
of Rs.10,80,000/-, forthwith.
9. In State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt.
Ltd. [(2023) 1 SCC 540] – judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil
Appeal No.6954 of 2022 – the Apex Court reiterated the law laid
down in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited [(2023) 2
SCC 805] – judgment dated 15.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No.7411
of 2021 – that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High
Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India directing a financial institution/Bank to
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 11
positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) to a
borrower; the grant of benefit under OTS is always subject to
eligibility criteria mentioned under OTS scheme and guidelines
issued from time to time. Such a decision should be left to the
commercial wisdom of the Bank, whose amount is involved, and it
is always to be presumed that a financial institution/Bank shall
take a prudent decision whether to grant a benefit or not under
the OTS scheme. Therefore, the High Court materially erred and
exceeded in its jurisdiction in issuing a writ of mandamus
directing the Bank to positively consider/grant the benefit of OTS
to the borrower.
10. In Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [(2023) 1 SCC
540], the Apex Court held that directing the Bank to reschedule
the payment under OTS would tantamount to modification of the
contract, which can be done by mutual consent under Section 62
of the Contract Act, 1872. Further, rescheduling the payment
under OTS and granting extension of time would tantamount to
rewriting the contract, which is not permissible while exercising
the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Rahim H.K. [2025
KHC OnLine 1242], a Division Bench of this Court in which both
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 12
of us are parties, held that no writ of mandamus can be issued by
the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, directing a financial institution or Bank to
positively grant the benefit of one time settlement (OTS) benefit
to the borrower. Such a decision should be left to the commercial
wisdom of financial institution or Bank. It is always to be
presumed that a financial institution or Bank shall take a prudent
decision whether to grant a benefit or not under the OTS scheme.
12. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to
supra, we find absolutely no merits in the contention of the
appellant-petitioner that having remitted a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-
on 11.02.2026, as evidenced by Ext.P12 statement of account,
the appellant has a legitimate expectation of the Bank settling the
loan account for Rs.12,00,000/-. When no mandamus can be
issued by this Court, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial
institution or Bank to positively grant the benefit of OTS benefit to
the borrower, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with
in declining the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.10255 of 2026,
while dismissing that writ petition by the impugned judgment
dated 19.03.2026, after recording the submission made by the
2026:KER:31924
W.A.No.864 of 2026 13
learned Standing Counsel for the Bank that the OTS request made
by the appellant is under consideration of the Bank and that, no
coercive action will be taken against the appellant till the disposal
of his OTS request.
In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no merits in
this writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
SPV