Allowed

Radha Gopan v. South Malabar Gramina Bank

Kerala HC13 Aug 2014WP(C)/4665/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition quashing salary deduction recovery proceedings by a bank. It held that pending amounts must be adjusted against payments already made by the petitioner and her husband, directing the bank to compute dues and offer instalments.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings against the petitioner's salary to be set aside. Respondent to adjust deposits, compute outstanding, and issue instalment options.

Radha Gopan Vs South Malabar Gramina Bank — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/22ND SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 4665 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RADHA GOPAN, AGED 45 YEARS W/O.K.M.NAZIR, KURUKKALPARAMBIL HOUSE PERUMPADAPPU P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN-679580.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK CHANGARAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER- 679 583

¶11

2. TAHSILDAR

¶12

PONNANI, PIN-679583.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC, S.MALABAR G. BANK R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.V LONACHAN R BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI. P. VIJAYARAGHAVAN R BY SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC, S.MALABAR G. BANK

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 4665 of 2012 (G)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EP 42/2004 IN OS 39 OF 2002 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E3-4313-09 DATED 30-1-12.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶26

=====================

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 4665 of 2012 ====================== Dated this the 13^th day of August, 2014

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery

¶30

proceedings initiated as is indicated in Ext.P3. In fact, the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and her husband. However, no property or assets being available, the authorities were constrained to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amounts due under the loan account and in which, a decree was also obtained by the respondent Bank; by deduction of amounts from the salary of the petitioner herein. The petitioner contends that in fact, in the execution filed as against the decree, the petitioner and her husband have made considerable payments, coming to around Rs.31,000/- and as per an interim order of this Court a further amount of Rs.10,000/was was also deposited.

¶31

The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank fairly

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 4665 of 2012

¶33

¶34

submits that, those amounts were not adjusted when Ext.P3 was issued. In such circumstance, the recovery proceedings initiated as per Ext.P3, as against salary of the petitioner, would stand set aside. The petitioner would approach the respondent Bank with the certified copy of this judgment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The respondent shall compute the balance amounts due and issue a statement as to the amounts due as on 30.08.2014. The petitioner shall also be given reasonable instalments to pay off the same, upon which, definitely the petitioner shall be liable for any future interest, which demand shall also be issued by the respondent Bank.

¶35

The Writ Petition stand allowed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶38

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

P.A To Judge.

Radha Gopan v. South Malabar Gramina Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Gopan v. South Malabar Gramina 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

Geo Fox Vs Sri.C.v.Sasidharan

C.H.Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

V.M. Abdulkhader Vs the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tibes Limited

Rojer Mathew P. Vs P.T.Mathai Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Lekha Suresh Vs the Authorised Officer

Abdul Gafoor Vs the District Collector