Partly allowed

George Thomas v. President,Puthuyppally Village Service

Kerala HC4 Feb 2008WP(C)/34550/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged distress action over properties due to loan defaults. The court disposed of the petition by permitting a conditional payment scheme to avoice sale proceedings. Failure to remit monthly deposits would trigger automatic recall.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to deposit one lakh per month starting February 2008 to wipe out outstanding loans and incidentals; otherwise distress action proceeds and benefit recalled.

George Thomas Vs President,Puthuyppally Village Service — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34550 of 2005(K)

¶5

--------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

-------------------

¶8

1. GEORGE THOMAS, S/O. LATE C.K. THOMAS, AGED 49 YEARS, VAZHAKKALA, KEEZHAR HILLS, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. REEMA GEORGE, W/O. GEORGE THOMAS, VAZHAKKALA, KEEZHAR HILLS, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

-----------------------

¶13

1. THE PRESIDENT, PUTHUYPPALLY VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1504, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2. PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1504, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

3. THE SALES OFFICER, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE SERVICE CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1504, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶16

*4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUPPALLY.

¶17

5. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶18

6. THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶19

*ADDL. R4 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/06/06 IN IA NO. 7953/2006.

¶20

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO: 34550/2005

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE SALE PUBLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS ISSUED BY THE R3.

¶26

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE SALE PUBLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS ISSUED BY THE R3.

¶27

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/ REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DT. 5/12/2005.

¶28

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY HUTCH, KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER DT. 8/6/2006.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶30

EXT.R2A. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 31/5/2004 IN OP NO. 36772/2002.

¶31

EXT.R2B. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 31/5/2004 IN OP NO. 36771/2002.

¶32

True copy

¶33

tga

¶34

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶35

W.P(C).No.34550 OF 2005

¶36

¶37

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2008

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, quite in extenso, on the merits of the claim. Petitioners 1 and 2 availed two independent loans. They were visited with arbitration cases following default. That led to Exts.P1 and P2 notices for execution and resultant listing for sale. As on 23.11.2005, Exts.P1 and P2 reflect a total outstanding of nearly Rupees Twenty Lakhs. With the passage of time, accrued interest and other incidentals would have grown up.

¶40

Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the quality of the action taken, I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in relation to that.

¶41

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that following

¶42

interim orders, amounts were paid and after Exts.P1 and P2, a

¶43

WPC.34550/05

¶44

Page numbers

¶45

total amount of Rupees Six Lakhs has been paid. It is thus pointed out by the learned counsel for the Bank that last among the remittances were in March, 2006. It is requested on behalf of the petitioners that they may be permitted to pay off the remaining amounts and avert further distress action, thereby letting them sell the property.

¶46

In the result, repelling all contentions of the petitioners on the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioners deposit at the rate of Rupees One Lakh per month, payable on or before the 25^th of every month commencing from February, 2008, the impugned distress action will be withheld and the petitioners will be permitted to pay off the remaining outstandings and wipe of all that accruing incidentals. However, if there is default in remitting any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment shall stand recalled automatically. The Bank will also consider any application of the petitioners for being extended any

¶47

WPC.34550/05

¶48

Page numbers

¶49

ameliorative measures as regards interest, penal interest etc., and other incidentals as may be found available and applicable.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge

¶52

kkb.

George Thomas v. President,Puthuyppally Village Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Thomas v. President,Puthuyppally Village Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

South India Corporation Ltd. Vs Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax

Shajahan.O.R. Vs State of Kerala

Jessy George Vs Dy.Chief Engineer, Kseb

V.N.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societie

Ponnamma Vs C.Rajagopalan Nair

Benny Jose Vs Returning Officer,Paraspara Sahaya Co-Op