Disposed

V. Surendran v. Kerala State Backward Classes Developmet

Kerala HC6 Jan 2010WP(C)/275/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a loan default dispute where the petitioner sought a One Time Settlement. The High Court directed the respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within two months, while staying coercive proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' representation (Ext.P2) must be considered, the petitioner to be heard, and coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 kept in abeyance for two months.

V. Surendran Vs Kerala State Backward Classes Developmet — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 275 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------

¶3

PETITIONER(S): -------------------------

¶4

V.SURENDRAN, VARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MUKKOLA, MANJAVILAKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶5

BY ADVS. MR.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, MR.NIJOY P.K., SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL.

¶6

RESPONDENT(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC,K.S.B.C.DEVP.CORPN.LTD.

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Kss

¶13

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶14

W.P(C) No. 275 of 2010-H

¶15

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2010.

¶16

The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from the first respondent Corporation on 28.8.1998 for renovation of his residential building. However, the due amount could not be re-paid on time, which made the petitioner a defaulter, leading to coercive steps initiated by the respondents and this forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already approached the respondents by filing Ext.P2 representation for granting the benefit of 'One Time Settlement' and that the same is still pending. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits, on instructions, that the scheme of One Time Settlement has been extended till the end of this month and that the actual liability of the petitioner as on date exceeds Rs.4,50,000/-. The learned counsel also submits that the respondents are very much ready and willing to consider Ext.P2

¶18

W.P(C) No. 275 of 2010-H

¶19

¶20

representation submitted in this regard.

¶21

In the above facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider Ext.P2 representation preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Subject to the above,

¶22

the coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being.

¶23

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

P.A to Judge

¶28

V. Surendran v. Kerala State Backward Classes Developmet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Surendran v. Kerala State Backward Classes Developmet

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

P.K.Velayudhan Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Thrissur Vs Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

Rahul George Vs K.S.E.B

Jyothy Laboratories Limited,Thrissur Vs Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

Asharaf Vs Deputy Tahsildar and Others

M/S.Daehsan Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)