Disposed

Rahim v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2016WP(C)/3080/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, guarantor of his father's defaulted loan, approached the Court to regularize repayment. While acknowledging violation of an interim order, the Court granted indulgence to pay the balance outstanding in 8 monthly installments and allowed an application to regularize the loan.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay balance outstanding in 8 equal monthly installments starting 25.08.2016; liberty to file application for regularization of loan after complying with modified interim order.

Rahim Vs the State of Kerala — 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 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3080 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RAHIM, S/O.SULAIMAN, EDAVANAKATT, NELLIPARAMBATH HOUSE, KUNDAMKULAM P.O.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-687 001.

¶11

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. KODUNGALLUR TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE

¶13

AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., KODUNGALLUR P.O.-680 664 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

4. SALE OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., KODUNGALLUR P.O.-680 664.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 3080 of 2016 (H)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1:TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 17.1.2016 P2:TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK FORWARDING THE PUBLICATION OF SALE NOTICE IN NEWS PAPER AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶28

W.P.(C)NO.3080 OF 2016

¶29

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioner is the guarantor to the loan facility

¶32

availed by his father in the year 2010. Petitioner is an autorickshaw driver by profession. The loan was liable to be repaid within a period of ten years payable at the rate of Rs.5250/- (Rupees five thousand two hundred and fifty only) per month. The loan was secured by mortgaging the immovable property belonging to the father of the petitioner. The lonee defaulted the loan amounts payable by installments. consequent to which bank initiated action evident from Exts.P1 and P2. It is in that circumstances petitioner has approached this court. When the matter was admitted to the files of this court on 27.01.2016, the learned Single Judge has suspended Ext.P1 proceedings to the extent of item No.5 subject

¶33

W.P.(C)NO.3080 OF 2016 2

¶34

to the petitioner depositing with the respondent Bank one-third of the total outstanding amount within one month. Admittedly, petitioner has not complied with the interim order passed by this court pursuant to which it stood vacated after the period provided thereunder.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent bank on instructions submits that, petitioner has repaid the loan amount only till 2011. Thereafter he has defaulted the amount and now an amount of Rs.4,67,880/- (Rupees four lakhs sixty seven thousand eight hundred and eighty only) is outstanding against the loan transaction as on 05.02.2016. Therefore, it is contended by the counsel for the bank that petitioner is a defaulter without any justification and therefore no indulgence may be shown to the petitioner in the matter of repayment of the loan especially due to the fact that petitioner has violated the interim order passed by this court.

¶36

Having evaluated the factual situations and

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C)NO.3080 OF 2016

¶39

the submissions made across the bar and on perusing the documents on record and the pleadings, I think since petitioner being an autorickshaw driver some indulgence can be shown in the matter of repayment of the loan amount in monthly installments. However, since the petitioner has violated the interim order passed by this court, there will be a direction to the petitioner to comply with the direction contained in the interim order passed by this court dated 27.01.2016 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The balance over due outstanding shall be paid by the petitioner in 8 equal monthly installments starting from 25.08.2016. Needless to say, if any of the installments are defaulted by the petitioner, the bank will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner resurrecting the action already initiated. In order to enable the petitioner to pay the amounts in equated monthly installments bank shall provide a statement of account within a period of two weeks from today. After paying one-third amount as

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C)NO.3080 OF 2016

¶42

directed in the interim order dated 27.01.2016, and modified above, petitioner will be at liberty to file an application seeking to regularise the loan transaction and thereupon the bank shall consider the same sympathetically and in accordance with law and pass orders thereon within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

sd/-

¶45

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶46

R.AV

Rahim v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim v. the State of Kerala

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

Rajesh Thomas Vs Sunu Chacko

Abdurahiman K.P. Vs the State of Kerala

Rajeev N. Vs State of Kerala

Babu E.T. Vs Rahoof

Kelambeth Gangadharan Vs the Tellicherry Taluk Co-Operative Marketing and Processing Society

K.P. Hamsa Vs State of Kerala