Allowed

R.Rajesh Kumar v. the Managing Director, Registered Office Bhadratha

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016WP(C)/22776/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petitioner challenging recovery notices for defaulted chit transactions. Instead of quashing the notices, the court directed the respondents to allow repayment via ten monthly instalments and provide an updated account statement to facilitate payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to pay entire liability to 3rd respondent in ten equated monthly instalments. Respondent directed to provide updated statement of account within two weeks; recovery in lump

R.Rajesh Kumar Vs the Managing Director… — 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

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22776 of 2015 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

R.RAJESH KUMAR, S/O RAJAN, SOUMY SADANAM, PEZHUVILA, MUTTACAUDU, KOVALAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 527.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR.680 001.

¶11

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER

¶12

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, CHIRAKULAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.

¶13

3. THE MANAGER

¶14

K.S.F.E. LTD., NEYYATTINKARA-II (144), SNDP BUILDING, NEYYATTINKARA-695 121.

¶15

R1 TO ,R3 BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE THADATHIL, SC, KSFE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 22776 of 2015 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT. P1- THE TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE PASS BOOK IN RESPECT OF THE CHITTY NO.45/2012 AND ITS REMITTANCE MADE BY HIM.

¶21

EXT.P2- THE TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE PASS BOOK IN RESPECT OF THE CHITTY NO.83/10 AND ITS REMITTANCE MADE BY HIM.

¶22

EXT. P3- THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P4- THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT. P5- THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

// True Copy //

P.A to Judge

rmm

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.22776 of 2015

¶32

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Petitioner availed two chitties from the 3^rd

¶35

respondent branch of the 1^st respondent. Admittedly, repayment of the chit amount was defaulted consequent to which action was initiated by the 3^rd respondent to recover the amount evident from Exts.P3 to P5. It is thus challenging the said action, petitioner has approached this Court, seeking appropriate direction.

¶36

Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit

¶37

refuting the statements, allegations, claims and demands made by the petitioner and also stating that substantial amounts are due to the 3^rd respondent from the petitioner. In spite of the earnest efforts of the 3^rd respondent, petitioner has not paid any amount to the 3^rd respondent which persuaded the 3^rd respondent to issue Exts.P3 to P5 notices.

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C)No.22776 of 2015

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶41

The sole question to be decided is whether any manner of interference is required in the action initiated by the respondents evident from Exts.P3 to P5 notices. Apparently, Exts.P3 to P5 are notices issued by the respondents directing the petitioner to repay the amounts due under the chit transaction. The said action initiated by the respondents cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. The chit amount secured by the petitioner, and default on the part of the petitioner to repay the same is not disputed. In that constrained circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner sought reasonable time to repay the defaulted amounts in sufficient monthly instalments.

¶42

However, learned counsel for respondents submitted that, more than an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is due from the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, there will be a direction to the petitioner to wipe off the

¶43

W.P.(C)No.22776 of 2015 3

¶44

entire liabilities to the 3^rd respondent in ten equated monthly instalments starting from 15.10.2016 and the same day of the successive months. Needless to say, if any of the instalment is defaulted, respondent will be liberty to proceed in accordance with law and recover the amount in lump. In order to enable the petitioner to pay the amount in equated monthly instalments, an upto date statement of account shall be provided to the petitioner within two weeks from today.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶47

// True Copy //

¶48

P.A to Judge

¶49

rmm/5/10/2016

R.Rajesh Kumar v. the Managing Director, Registered Office Bhadratha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajesh Kumar v. the Managing Director, Registered Office Bhadratha

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

Sister Marykutty Kannattu Vs Pappinissery Grama Panchayath

Kunju Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Jimmy K.C. Vs the Taluk Land Board

Nalini Harikumar Vs Trivandrum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. @ Kerala Constructions

S.Dathan Vs Mr.Antony Chacko

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala