Dismissed

Shereef Bappu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2016WP(C)/31714/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging mortgage recovery action for loan arrears, the High Court of Kerala directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,00,000/- within two months to qualify for the OTS Scheme, dismissing the writ upon compliance with this direction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- within two months to have loan considered under OTS Scheme; writ dismissed.

Shereef Bappu 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

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 31714 of 2015 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHEREEF BAPPU, AGED 54, S/O.KINARAMAKKAL BAPPU, KUMARANELLUR PO, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680 590, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RUKIYA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.SHEREEF BAPPU, KINARAMAKAL HOUSE, KUMARANELLUR PO, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR - 680 590.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSSUR - 680001.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, SMART CENTRE, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR - 680001.

¶14

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARANELLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR - 680001.

¶15

--2--

¶16

--2--

¶17

WP(C).No. 31714 of 2015 (L)

¶18

6. ASOK KUMAR.T, THEKEPATU HOUSE, CHELAKARA PO, THRISSUR - 680 586.

¶19

R1, R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., SC R6 BY ADV. SRI.MOLLY JACOB

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

mbr/

¶22

WP(C).No. 31714 of 2015 (L)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

------- P1-	---------------- A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER TO HIS W	POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE IFE DATED 18.8.2015.
P2-	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 17.10.2014.	DEMAND SERVED ON THE PETITIONER
P3-	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 25.8.2015.	THE DETAIL STATEMENT
P4-	A TRUE COPY FO THE RESPONDENT DATED 15	CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE SIXTH .9.2015 AND ANOTHER DATED NIL.
P5-	A TRUE COPY FO THE DATED NIL.	STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER
P6-	A TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE ISSUED DATED 31.8.2015.
RESPOND -------	ENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------	NIL //TRUE COPY//
mbr/		P.S. TO JUDGE

¶26

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C)No.31714 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

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

¶31

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners

¶32

challenging the action initiated by the respondents to recover the arrears due under a loan transaction by mortgage of properties. According to the petitioner, due to unforeseen circumstances, the amounts could not be paid. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations, claims and demands made in the writ petition. It is also stated that, in accordance with the terms of the agreement the loan amounting to Rs.15.35 lakhs had to be repaid in 18 monthly instalments together with interest starting from 01.06.2013, since, loan repayment was defaulted, 2^nd respondent did not have any other option than to proceed against the petitioner, to recover the amount. It is also

¶34

W.P.(C)No.31714 of 2015 2

¶35

stated that petitioner is a principal debtor along with the 6^th respondent and the statement made in the writ petition, petitioner is a guarantor is not correct.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶37

Even though, many contentions are raised by the petitioners in the writ petition, today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner confined the arguments to the indulgence of this Court in permitting the petitioner to pay the outstanding amounts in reasonable instalments. However, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that, OTS scheme is in vogue and if the petitioner makes a payment of Rs.5,00,000/within two months, the case of the petitioner will be considered under the OTS scheme. I find the said offer is a fair concession on the part of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore there will be a direction to the petitioner to pay

¶38

W.P.(C)No.31714 of 2015 3

¶39

an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If such an amount is received by the 2^nd respondent, the loan shall be considered under the OTS Scheme and proceed accordingly. However, I make it clear, if the petitioner defaults the payment as directed above, respondents will be at liberty to resurrect any coercive action and proceed in accordance with law to recover the amount in lump.

¶40

Writ petition is dismissed as accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶42

[ True copy]

¶43

P.A. to Judge

¶44

rmm/5/11/2016

Shereef Bappu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shereef Bappu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Malabar Cements Ltd. Vs Sri.K.Kadirvel

Anish.M.K Vs Dist.Collector, Alappuzha

English Indian Clays Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Vincent E. Vs Ravikrishnan N.R

G.Haridasa Sarma Vs Additional Tahsildar

P.Balan Nair Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Neduvannaur