The High Court set aside the stay of Writ Appeal impeding resolution of a banking dispute. It held the Appellant could settle with the Bank by complying with original agreements or rescheduling, leaving freedom to the parties to waive court relief.
Writ Appeal closed; parties left free to settle dispute via original loan terms or rescheduling.
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 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN
MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932
WA.No. 1080 of 2010()
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36876/2009 Dated 28/01/2010
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MINI, D/O.CHELLAKKUDAN DEVASSY, AGED 42 YEARS, MALA, PALLIPPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS SRI.K.S.DILIP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS::
BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
Writ Appeal No.1080 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was securitisation proceedings. It is seen that relief is granted in the form of instalment facility to the appellant. However, appellant's case is that the loan is repayable under instalment scheme agreed between the Bank and the appellant. In fact, appellant has cleared the arrears of instalments and so much so, account stands regularised is his case. Therefore, the contention of counsel is that but for the instalment facility granted by the court, appellant would have been entitled to enjoy the scheme of payment under agreement between the Bank and herself. Counsel for the Bank submitted that since Writ Appeal is filed, he has to take instruction from the Bank. We do not think there is any need to adjourn the Writ Appeal because appellant's prayer is only for freedom to settle the dispute with the Bank and the judgment stands in their way. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has
W.A. 1080/2010
2
granted only relief to the petitioner and it is upto the petitioner to waive the same and enter into any terms of settlement with the Bank. Therefore, we leave freedom to the parties to settle their dispute by proceeding to comply with the terms of original loan agreement or even to re-schedule the loan, if both the parties so agree. Writ Appeal is closed with the above findings and observations.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge
pms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Appellant has a right to the original loan scheme/instalment facility granted by the court below despite pendency of the writ appeal.
MINI
SYNDICATE BANK HOUSING FINANCE BRANCH MUTHOOT TOWERS
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
P.S.GOPINATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
