Partly allowed

Kunhammad Haji v. Secretary, Vatakara Co-Op.Agrl.and Rural Development Bank

Kerala HC4 Apr 2014WP(C)/30670/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a loan defaulter challenging recovery proceedings due to failure to intimate quantification. Court admitted liability but, considering impecunious circumstances, directed the bank to quantify dues and grant ten monthly instalments, keeping recovery in abeyance pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Quantification of dues within two weeks; grant of ten monthly instalments for balance dues; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance conditional on timely remittances.

Kunhammad Haji Vs Secretary, Vatakara Co-Op.Agrl.and… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/14TH CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 30670 of 2013 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KUNHAMMAD HAJI, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, MADATHILPOYIL HOUSE KURINJALIYODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SECRETARY, VATAKARA CO-OP.AGRL.AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK P.O.KAKKATTIL, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

2. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,

¶12

VATAKARA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK P.O.KAKKATTIL, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

kkj

¶17

WP(C).No. 30670 of 2013 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/4/2013.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶26

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.30670 of 2013

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2014

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner, a defaulter in repaying the loan availed of from the 1^nd respondent is before this Court challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him. The liability and the default is admitted and the only contention is against failure to intimate quantification. Considering the facts of the case and the alleged impecunious circumstances of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 1^nd respondent within two weeks of receipt of the same.

¶32

(ii) The 1^nd respondent shall quantify the

¶33

amounts due under the various transactions of the

¶34

WPC.30670/2013

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

petitioner and inform the petitioner in writing the amounts due as on 30.04.2014.

¶37

(iii) The 1^st respondent shall grant ten monthly instalments for the payment of the balance dues, starting from 05.05.2014.

¶38

(iv) Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the remittances as per this order are made without any default.

¶39

(v) On the petitioner making two consecutive defaults, the recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue.

¶40

(vi) On the 10^th instalment being satisfied, the respondent shall issue a statement of the interest accrued in all the transactions from 30.04.2014 which shall be satisfied by the petitioner on the 5^th of the succeeding month.

¶41

(vii) On the petitioner satisfying the entire

¶42

WPC.30670/2013

¶43

arrears, the recovery proceedings shall be unenforceable.

¶44

Writ Petition is disposed of as above, making it clear that the respondent will be free to proceed with the recovery if the above conditions are not complied with.

¶45

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶46

jma

¶47

//true copy//

¶48

P.A to Judge

Kunhammad Haji v. Secretary, Vatakara Co-Op.Agrl.and Rural Development Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhammad Haji v. Secretary, Vatakara Co-Op.Agrl.and Rural Development 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

Varkey Dominic George Vs State of Kerala

R.Binukumar Vs the Board of Directors of the Anad Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Ebrahimkutty Vs the Secretary

Panangadan Abdul Muneer Vs the Manager

M/S. Kinship Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Pf Commissioner , Recovery Officer

Ajith G. Vs Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Kollam