Disposed

Jayakumar v. the Branch Manager

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016WP(C)/20840/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed a writ petition regarding a vehicle loan default. The petitioner sought a statement of accounts and installment options after the bank refused to act on his requests. The court directed the bank to provide the account statement and allowed repayment in ten installments, with liberty to recover immediately upon any default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to repay outstanding amount in ten equated monthly installments starting 15.10.2016; Bank to furnish statement of accounts within two weeks.

Jayakumar Vs the Branch Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20840 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

R.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 38, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, R/AT VIJAYA VIGNESH VIHAR, VAIKOM ROAD, KANNANKULANGARA, THRIPUNITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)

¶9

SMT.K.A.SUNITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF PATIALA, NO.39/4164, FIRST FLOOR, SHEEMA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI - 682 036.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.VINOD JABAR

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 20840 of 2016 (D)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

P2 COPY OF THE E-MAIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶26

W.P.(C)No.20840 OF 2016

¶27

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner has availed a vehicle loan from the respondents in the year 2013. The principle amount was Rs.8,70,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs seventy thousand only). However, petitioner has not repaid the amount in accordance with the terms of the agreement, which constrained the respondent bank to initiate action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount. Consequent to which, petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application and Ext.P2 online application seeking a statement of accounts and payment of the dues by installments. However no action was taken. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction this writ petition is filed, since the respondents refused to act upon Ext.P1 and P2.

¶30

The respondent bank has filed a counter affidavit, basically contending that an amount of Rs.9,27,012.86/- (Rupees nine lakhs twenty seven

¶31

W.P.(C)No.20840 OF 2016 2

¶32

thousand twelve and eighty six paise only) as on 27.06.2016, is outstanding against the petitioner and the overdue amount as on the said date Rs.2,50,254/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand two hundred and fifty four only). Since the amounts are outstanding, the account was classified as non performing asset on 30.04.2015. Therefore, according to the bank petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the writ petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. Taking note of the submissions made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit, I am of the considered opinion that, a lenient view can be taken by permitting the petitioner to repay the outstanding amount as on 30.09.2016 in ten equated monthly installments starting from 15.10.2016 and on the same day of the successive months. Needless to say, if any of the installments is defaulted by the

¶34

W.P.(C)No.20840 OF 2016 3

¶35

petitioner, bank will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner and recover the amount. In order to enable the petitioner to pay the amount as directed above, a statement of accounts shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner within two weeks from today.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

sd/-

¶38

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶39

R.AV

Jayakumar v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar v. the Branch Manager

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

Aparna Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Paul Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Philomina @ Ammini Vs the District Collector

M/S.Mohanan & Co. Vs Union of India

K.Abdul Rehiman Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (Agri)

Neeba A.S. Vs State of Kerala