Allowed

Ambily Sivankutty v. Union of India

Kerala HC11 Nov 2016WP(C)/20287/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an agricultural loan borrower, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Taluk Legal Service Committee and the bank to consider his claim for loan waiver. Petitioner claims the prior application by LSC was dismissed only due to lack of prosecution. The court directed the LSC to reconsider the application upon giving notice. Writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Karunagappally to reconsider the petitioner's application (Ext.P3) after issuing notice to him and the Bank within three months.

Ambily Sivankutty Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20287 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AMBILY SIVANKUTTY, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. SIVANKUTTY, KALEECKAL VADAKKATHIL, PAVUMBA SOUTH, PAVUMBA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL SMT.A.M.FOUSI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT,NEW DELHI

¶11

2. CHIEF MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK, THODIYOOR BRANCH,KOLLAM 691 001

¶12

*ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED :

¶13

3. TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KARUNAGAPPALLY IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 IN THE WRIT PETITION.

¶14

R1 BY SRI.H.GOPAKUMAR, CGC BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.G.PAUL

¶15

SRI.MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU)

¶16

ADDL. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 20287 of 2016 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE OF 2ND RESPONDENT BANK

¶23

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY

¶24

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.20287 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

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

¶35

Petitioner availed an agricultural loan of 8 lakhs from the 2^nd respondent Bank in the year 2009. According to the petitioner, as per the successive notifications issued by the Government as well as the bank for wavier of certain agricultural loans or granting benefits under the notifications, petitioner is also entitled to get benefits, but the same was not granted. In that view of the matter petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 before the Taluk Legal Service Committee, which was numbered as PLP No.441/2016. However, the said application submitted by the petitioner before the Taluk Legal Service Committee happened to be dismissed, consequent to the non-prosecution of the same by the petitioner. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶36

W.P.(C)No.20287 of 2016

¶37

¶38

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶39

learned Central Government Counsel and Government

¶40

Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶41

Since Ext.P3 was not considered by the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Karunagappally on merits, it cannot be said that the dismissal will stand in the way of the petitioner making a claim for agricultural debit wavier, I think, it is only proper that, the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Karunagappally is directed to reconsider Ext.P3, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent Bank. That view of the matter, there will be a direction accordingly. Since, the Taluk Legal Service Committee is not made a party to this writ petition, the said authority is Suo Motu impleaded as additional 3^rd respondent. A decision shall be taken by the 3^rd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

W.P.(C)No.20287 of 2016

¶43

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶46

[ True copy]

¶47

P.A. to Judge

¶48

rmm/14/11/2016

Ambily Sivankutty v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambily Sivankutty v. Union of India

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

Sudeep Mathew Vs Jobin K. George

A.J. Joseph Vs P.H.Sadiq Ali

Bindu John Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

S.Chellamma Vs the Union of India

Sri.T.P.Jose Vs State of Kerala

Benny M.Baby Vs State of Kerala