Allowed

Joy Sebastian v. the Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 556

Kerala HC12 Dec 2012WP(C)/8340/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In In Re Joy Sebastian, the Court allowed a writ petition seeking a temporary stay on recovery proceedings initiated by a cooperative bank. The Court directed the bank to grant the petitioner three months to sell property and raise funds for repayment, with specific conditions on the final sale.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to grant a period of three months to the petitioner to sell his properties and settle the loan amount of Rs.3,33,000/-; stay on recovery proceedings during this perio

Joy Sebastian Vs the Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/21ST AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8340 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOY SEBASTIAN, KAPYARU MALAYIL, ARAKUZHA, MUVARTTUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 556 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.

¶11

2. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, INSPECTOR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES KALLOORKAD FARMER'S CO-OP BANK GROUP MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 8340 of 2012 (N)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19/03/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN PERSON TO THE AWARD IN FILE NO. 1254/2010.

¶18

EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/03/2012 ISUSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 74 (3) WITH 81 (B) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES.

¶19

EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23/03/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON RECEIPT OPF RS.11,000/- ON 19/03/2012.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶26

W.P(c). No.8340 of 2012

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2012

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued by the second respondent and for a direction directing the first respondent to take immediate steps for settling the loan amount by one time settlement in pursuant to Ext.P3 petition.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submitted that the loan amount was availed in the year 2007, that no amount has been paid so far towards the debt and that the petitioner is liable to pay the due amount. The amount due from the petitioner is Rs.3,33,000/-(Three lakh thirty three thousand).

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner can raise the amount only by sale of his properties. The petitioner is free to initiate steps for sale of his property. There will be a direction to the second respondent not to proceed further pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 notices for a period of three

¶32

W.P(c). No.8340 of 2012

¶33

¶34

months to enable the petitioner to raise the amount by sale of his property. If the petitioner is able to sell the property within that period, the petitioner shall remit the amount in the bank before the execution of sale deed in favour of the perspective vendor. If the petitioner is not able to sell that property within that period, the respondent is free to realise the amount by continuing the proceedings initiated by Exts.P1 and P2 notices. In no circumstances time granted will be extended and the petitioner shall not file any writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings.

¶35

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE

¶36

dlk

Joy Sebastian v. the Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 556

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Sebastian v. the Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 556

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Vs Regional Transport Authority

Kerala Independent Silk Employees Union Vs State of Kerala

Sri.Manoj Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M/S Shriram Tranaport Finance Company Ltd. Vs Thankachan Thomas

C.M.Alice Vs the Peravoor Co-Operative Housing Buildi

Purushothaman Nair Vs Secretary, Rta