Dismissed

Jemma Sunny v. R.v.Jineesh

Kerala HC20 Jul 2010WP(C)/4304/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner mother filed a writ petition against her daughter and son-in-law to exempt herself from educational loan liability and direct recovery from the latter. The matter was settled via mediation. The court disposed of the petition based on the settlement, directing banks to proceed against respective liable parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of per settlement; banks directed to proceed against respective liable parties per settlement terms for loan recovery.

Jemma Sunny Vs R.v.Jineesh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 4304 of 2010(K)

PETITIONER(S):

JEMMA SUNNY ,METCHIL HOUSE, MRA-H NO.81,MUNDAKKAL,KOLLAM-1.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

R.V.JINEESH ,NAVY HOSPITAL, MANGALORE HILLS,VASCO-DE-GAMA,GOA,FROM R.V.BHAVAN,VELLANCHIRA,PANAVOOR,NEDUMANGAD.

¶14

SUJA SUNNY, W/O.JINEESH

¶15

DO..DO..

¶16

THE COMMANDING OFFICER

¶17

INS HANSA, DABOLIM,GOA 403 801.

¶18

THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH,BEACH ROAD,KOLLAM.

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH ,KOLLAM.

¶20

ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R5 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R3 SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) FOR R1 & 2

¶21

SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) FOR R4

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶24

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶25

W.P(C) No. 4304 of 2010

¶26

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20^th day of July, 2010.

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This writ petition is filed by a mother against her daughter and son-in-law. The 2^nd respondent obtained two education loans from respondents 4 and 5 for repayment of which the petitioner was a coobligant. It appears that the 2^nd respondent-daughter married the 1^st respondent without the consent of the mother. Apparently in consequence thereof, the mother and daughter fell apart. The banks have started proceedings for recovery of the amount. According to the petitioner, she is unable to re-pay the loan amount which the 2^nd respondent has taken. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner-mother has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶29

“(a) Direct the 3^rd respondent to recover the necessary amount from salary of the 1^st respondent and pay of the monthly instalments and the over dues of the loans obtained from respondents 4 and 5 by the 2^nd respondent;

¶30

(b) direct the 4^th and 5^th respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for the recovery of the loan amount and interest which was obtained for the education of the 2^nd respondent;

¶31

(c) declare that the 1^st respondent is liable to pay of the entire liabilities towards the loans obtained from respondents 4 and 5 solely for the education of 2^nd respondent.”

¶32

In view of the fact that the dispute is between a mother on the one side and her daughter and son-in-law on the other side, I suggested that the matter be referred for mediation to the Kerala Mediation Center. The parties agreed to the same. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Mediation Center. Wisdom has dawn on the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, though late, and they have

¶33

W.P.C. No. 4304/2010

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

settled the matter among themselves on the following terms:

¶36

“1. The petitioner has agreed to discharge the liability in connection with the educational loan granted by the 5^th respondent for the studies of the 2^nd respondent.

¶37

The 2^nd respondent has agreed to discharge the liability towards the 4^th respondent Bank in connection with the educational loan granted to her, fully.

¶38

The 2^nd respondent has also undertaken to pay Rs. 50,000/to the 5^th respondent bank within a period of 5 months from today, which will be credited in the loan liability to be discharged by the petitioner as per the 1^st condition. If the 2^nd respondent commits any default, the 2^nd respondent will be liable to pay the interest charged by the 5^th respondent bank.

¶39

The petitioner has promised to return the passport and Kerala Nursing Council Registration Certificate of the 2^nd respondent through her counsel.

¶40

Both the parties have decided to not proceed with any further litigation or other harassment tactics.

¶41

The 1^st respondent has no liability to discharge the educational loans taken by the 2^nd respondent from 4^th and 5^th respondents.

¶42

The petitioner has no responsibility to discharge the liability towards the educational loan granted to the 2^nd respondent by the 4^th respondent.”

¶43

They now request that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of that settlement. Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that although they have no objection against the settlement, their interest also may be protected appropriately.

¶44

Having heard all parties, I dispose of this writ petition in terms of the settlement between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 1 and 2 on the other with a further direction that in respect of the amounts agreed to be paid by the 2^nd respondent,

¶45

W.P.C. No. 4304/2010 -: 3 :-

¶46

respondents 4 and 5 can proceed against the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent will be liable for the same. In respect of the amount still due to be paid by the petitioner, the 5^th respondent can proceed against the petitioner. I make it clear that for regularising the loan accounts, respondents 4 and 5 can insist upon payment of the overdue amounts by the person due to discharge the loan as per the agreement between the parties.

¶47

Tds/

¶48

[TRUE COPY]

¶49

P.S TO JUDGE.

Jemma Sunny v. R.v.Jineesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jemma Sunny v. R.v.Jineesh

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.v.Sundaran Vs P.Dhanesh Kumar and Another

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Nelliampathy Plantations Ltd.

Dr.Vijayalakshmi R Nair Vs Union of India

Kaithavalappil Khader Haji Vs Palamadathil Kotyat Pathumma and Others

Commander K.P.Sasidharan Vs Union of India

P.K.Muhammed Koya Vs the State of Kerala