The review petition challenging an order granting instalment directions to the petitioner was dismissed. The Court held that no new fact was brought on record to warrant variation of the previous judgment, which had considered the petitioner's financial hardship at the time. The petition failed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938
RP.No. 377 of 2016 () IN WP(C).89/2016
---------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 89/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.02.2016
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:-:
LENID FOOT CARE PRIVATE LLIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CP 16/29, KAITHAKUNDU, AYIKKARAPADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.G.ANEESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:
1. BANK OF BARODA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, IST FLOOR, HOLIDAY CITY CENTRE, OPP. KURISUPALLI, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.
2. CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA IST FLOOR, HOLIDAY CITY CENTRE, OPP. KURISUPALLI, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.
R BY SRI.K.M.ANEESH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 377 of 2016 () IN WP(C).89/2016 ----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.03.2016 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
NIL
// True copy // PA to Judge
mns/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. Review Petition No.377 of 2016 in W.P.(C).No.89 of 2016
............................................................. Dated this the 25th day of May, 2016
O R D E R
This is a petition seeking review of the judgment dated 19.02.2016 whereby this Court had granted 12 equal and successive monthly instalments commencing from 03.03.2016 to pay the defaulted loan amounts, and also directed the petitioner to continue to keep up the regular instalments as per the original loan schedule in the term loan account as a condition for deferring the recovery proceedings that were initiated by the respondent bank. In the Review Petition, the petitioner submits that while he has paid substantial amounts towards the 1st instalment, he could not pay the balance amounts, or comply with the directions with regard to regular instalments, and it was only then that he realised that he could not comply with the directions in the judgment. It is on the above basis that he seeks a review of the judgment dated 19.02.2016.
-2-
Review Petition No.377 of 2016 in
W.P.(C).No.89 of 2016
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, it was after taking into account the financial hardship projected by the petitioner at the time of hearing that he was given 12 instalments to pay the defaulted loan amounts, and also directed to keep up the regular instalment payments in the term loan account. There is no new fact that is brought on record to necessitate a variation of the directions already given in the judgment dated 19.02.2016. I therefore see no reason to review the said judgment. The review petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
mns/25.05.16
-3-
Review Petition No.377 of 2016 in
W.P.(C).No.89 of 2016
Lenid Foot Care Private Limited
Bank of Baroda
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
