Dismissed

Vinodkumar P v. Chairman,Federal Bank

Kerala HC19 Dec 2011WP(C)/28522/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought full debt waiver as a marginal farmer under the 2008 Scheme. Court noted petitioner had settled for 25% waiver via compromise decree. High Court dismissed writ, stating court cannot adjudicate land extent facts and petitioner failed to comply with compromise terms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as petitioner is not entitled to full waiver having compromised for 25% waiver and failed to comply with terms.

Vinodkumar P Vs Chairman,Federal Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 28522 of 2010(M)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

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

¶9

VINODKUMAR T., S/O. LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, PUTHIYA PARAMBATH, VELLILA P.O., MANKADA (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 324.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL BANK BUILDINGS, HEAD OFFICE, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM - 683 101, ALUVA (P.O.).

¶14

2. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., ANGADIPURAM BRANCH, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322.

¶15

3. THE SECRETARY, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶16

4. THE CHAIR PERSON, SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 01.

¶17

ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA FOR R4 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R2 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA FOR R4

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

DSV/-

¶20

WP(C).No. 28522 of 2010(M)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1	:	COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.01.1975 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MANKADA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER.
EXHIBIT P2	:	COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE FEDERAL BANK DATED 03.02.2009.
EXHIBIT P3	:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THECHAIRMAN OF FEDERAL BANK DATED 18.03.2009.
EXHIBIT P4	:	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF FINANCIAL SERVICES DATED 13.01.2010.
EXHIBIT P5	:	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 01.04.2009.
EXHIBIT P6	:	COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED DURING THE TIME OF AVAILING AGRICULTURAL LOAN.
EXHIBIT P7	:	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.N0.95/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, MANJERI.
EXHIBIT P8	:	COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED IN O.S.NO.95/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, MANJERI

¶24

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶25

ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN O.S.NO.95/2006 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI INCLUDING THE PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DSV/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.28522 of 2010

¶31

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2011

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the petitioner is entitled for full waiver of the agricultural loan availed from respondents 1 and 2 Bank, in view of the “Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008”, formulated by the Central Government. Contention of the petitioner is that he is a 'marginal farmer' coming within the purview of clause 3.5 of the scheme in question, because the agricultural land owned by him was having an extent of less than One Hectare (2.5 Acres) only.

¶34

In a statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is mentioned that the petitioner is coming only within the category of 'other farmers' mentioned in clause 3.7 of the scheme, because he is a farmer cultivating agricultural land of more than 2 Hectares (5 Acres). Such a stand is taken by the respondent Bank on the basis that the

¶35

W.P.(C).28522/10-M

¶36

-2-

¶37

borrower, who is the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, has got Purchase Certificate from the Land Tribunal (Ext.P1) which will indicate that he was a cultivating tenant of land having an extent of 8 Acres 60 Cents. According to the petitioner, the extent of land mentioned in Ext.P1 is a mistake and that actually the petitioner is the owner of only 2.33 Acres, which fact is evident from Ext.P3 Encumbrance Certificate produced.

¶38

However it is pointed out that the respondent

¶39

Bank had filed a suit for recovery of amounts due in the loan account, as O.S.No.95/2006, before the Sub Court, Manjeri. It is further pointed out that the suit was compromised between the Bank and the petitioner by accepting the fact that the petitioner is eligible for waiver of 25% of the amounts due since, he is coming within the category of 'other farmers'. Along with the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 a copy of compromise petition filed before the Sub Court is produced. The terms of the compromise is to the effect that out of the total amount of Rs.1,94,784/-, it was agreed that 50% will be paid on or

¶40

W.P.(C).28522/10-M

¶41

-3-

¶42

before 31.3.2009 by the petitioner and the other defendants. It was also agreed that 25% further amount will be paid on or before 30.6.2009. It was further agreed that on payment of the 75% amount, the Bank will forgive the balance 25% as debt relief. It is also stated that a compromise decree has already been passed by the Sub Court in the terms of the said petition.

¶43

Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Bank pointed out that as per the terms of the compromise, if default is committed in payment of 75% of the amount due, then the defendants will be liable for payment of the entire amount due to the Bank. Since the payment as per the compromise has not been made, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief, is the contention.

¶44

On the basis of the compromise arrived before the Sub Court, it is evident that the petitioner had agreed for debt relief to the extent of 25%. Having agreed upon such terms and having arrived at a compromise, he would not be justified to take a contention that he is entitled for full

¶45

W.P.(C).28522/10-M

¶46

-4-

¶47

waiver as a 'marginal farmer'. Further, it is evident that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms of the compromise decree and the Bank is at liberty to execute the decree for realisation of the amounts. Therefore the challenge raised at this point of time seeking full waiver of the amount need not be entertained. Further more, whether the petitioner is the owner of more than one Hectare of land is a question which need be decided on the basis of factual situation prevailing, an adjudication of which this court cannot undertake in this writ petition filed under Article 226.

¶48

In the result the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶49

(Sd/-)

¶50

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶51

okb

¶52

True copy

¶53

P.A to Judge

Vinodkumar P v. Chairman,Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinodkumar P v. Chairman,Federal Bank

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

K.M.Shanu Vs John Varghese

Raju Cyriac Vs the Dist.Collector

Sreehari.M. Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors.

Geogy Varghese Vs Ammini P.G.

Jisha P.Sainudeen Vs M.G.University

M/S.Central Advertising Agency and Anr. Vs the State of Kerala and Others