Disposed

Santhakumary v. Special Sale Officer

Kerala HC19 Aug 2011WP(C)/23595/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a borrower challenging the Bank's coercive action for loan default. The court directed the petitioner to apply for the Bank's One Time Settlement scheme within a week and stayed coercive proceedings pending the bank's decision on the application. No specific statutes or precedents were cited.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Bank for the OTS Scheme within one week. Coercive proceedings subject to bank orders.

Santhakumary Vs Special Sale Officer — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 23595 of 2010(Y)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

¶9

SANTHAKUMARY, W/O. BHARATHAN, KIZHAKKETHARA HOUSE, KARADIKUZHY KARA, PEERUMEDU VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, PEERUMEEDU TALUK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO:1-273 ELAPPARA.P.O., IDUKI DIST.

¶14

PEERUMEEDU TALUK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO:1-273 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PEERUMEEDU TALUK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.1-273 ELAPPARA.P.O., IDUKI DIST.

¶15

KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION AGRICULTURAL URBAN WHOLESALE MARKET, VENPALAVATTON, ANAYARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE

¶17

R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.M. MANOJ.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 23595 of 2010(Y)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNCIATION DATED 13.10.2009 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 24.06.2010 EXTP3 : TRUE COPY OF THE CASE SUMMARY AND DISCHARGE RECORD DATED 30.06.2010 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE BILLS.

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶25

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) 23595 OF 2010

¶27

......................................................................... Dated this the 19^th August , 2011

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner, her husband and son had availed four different loans of small amounts ranging from Rs.10000/- to Rs.35000/- from the respondent Bank, agreeing to repay the same, subject to the stipulations as specified by the Bank. However, the petitioner could not honour the commitment in clearing the arrears, pursuant to which the Bank proceeded with steps by issuing Ext.P2, which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for immediate intervention. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 28.07.2010. coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner satisfied a sum of Rs.25,000/- within six weeks, which is stated as complied with and the interim order is being extended from time to time.

¶30

The 2^nd respondent has filed a statement pointing out

¶31

the actual facts and figures and the liability to be cleared by the

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) 23595 OF 2010

¶34

petitioner. It is also pointed out in paragraph '5' of the statement dated 17.02.2011 that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the Bank for settling the liability, availing the benefit of 'One Time Settlement scheme' on or before 28.02.2011. The learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the Scheme is still in operation till 15.09.2011 and if the petitioner approaches the Bank, the grievance of the petitioner will be considered with reference to the terms of the Scheme and the eligible benefits will be extended to the petitioner, enabling the petitioner and other borrowers/defaulters to wipe out the liability.

¶35

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that substantial amount towards interest has been wiped out by the Debt Relief Commission and that the petitioner intends to file a detailed statement in this regard while seeking to avail the benefit of 'OTS', also pointing out the poor plight of the family.

¶36

Considering the submissions made from both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the submissions made before this Court. The petitioner is set at liberty to approach the Bank for availing the benefit of 'OTS' Scheme as mentioned

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) 23595 OF 2010

¶39

above, by filing an application, within one week, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Bank, in accordance with law, taking note of the submissions as put forth from the part of the petitioner. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Bank, as to the extension of benefit of OTS Scheme.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶42

Santhakumary v. Special Sale Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhakumary v. Special Sale Officer

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

G.Rajan Vs the District Collector and Others

Rajanikanth V.S. Vs Director of Medical Education and Anothe

Poozhi Kettida Nirmana Thozhilali Vs the Port Officer

P.K.Thomas Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

Krishnankutty Vs the Addl.Dist. Magistrare, Ernakulam

Lala Vincent Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport