The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a guarantor against a recovery certificate, holding that it was not appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction to extend reliefs like private sale permission at this late stage. The judgment clarified that remedies lie before the Recovery Officer or Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929
WP(C).No. 3955 of 2008(U)
------------------------OA.268/2004 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
PONNAMMA GEORGE, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.P.J.GEORGE, PALLIVATHUKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, THUMPAMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) No. 3955 of 2008-U
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a guarantor for a transaction which resulted in a recovery certificate issued in the year 2005. The outstanding amounts as on 30/04/2005 is Rs.49,58,792.47 as per Ext.P1. In 2008 February, this writ petition is filed stating that the petitioner was only a guarantor and she could raise the necessary funds by private sale if the bank extends the benefit of one time settlement scheme, reduction in outstandings and also by permitting private sale. I do not think that at this distant point of time, it is for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction to extend any such reliefs to the petitioner. Writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. It is clarified that, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner working out the remedies, according to law, before the recovery officer or the Tribunal, as the case may be.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge
ms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to extend reliefs such as permit for private sale to a guarantor at this distant point in time.
Ponnamma George
Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam
The Federal Bank Ltd.
MS Zachs Agencies
B.Radhakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
