Allowed

Biju.S v. Deputy Thasildar (R.R)

Kerala HC5 Apr 2016WP(C)/7561/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition concerned the petitioner's inability to repay a bank loan leading to recovery proceedings. The court allowed the petitioner to remit the outstanding amount in five monthly installments, keeping recovery actions in abeyance if paid on time, and directed the bank to provide an account statement.

What did the court decide?

Recovery steps kept in abeyance upon remitting Rs.75,412/- plus interest in five monthly installments starting 28.03.2016.

Biju.S Vs Deputy Thasildar (R.R) — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 7561 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

BIJU S, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN M, AVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHNNOOR, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DEPUTY THASILDAR (R.R) / AUTHORISED OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE, KATTAKADA, TRIVANDRUM.695 572.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MEENADU VILLAGE, VEERANAKAVU VILLAGE OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM-695 572.

¶12

3. MANAGER,

¶13

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHATHANNOOR BANK, KOLLAM-691 572.

¶14

R1,2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RENJITH R3 BY SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2016 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 7561 of 2016 (U)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1TRUE COPY DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT 1968.

¶21

P2TRUE COPY DEMAND NOTICE PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF LAND UNDER SECTION 34 OF REVENUE RECOVERY.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). No. 7561 of 2016

¶29

===================================================== Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner, who had availed of a loan from the respondent bank, defaulted in repayment of the same. Consequently, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, to recover the loan amounts. Exts.P1 and P2 are the demand notices issued to the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶33

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that the sole prayer of the petitioner is to permit him to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the bank in easy installments. Taking into account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶34

(i) The total outstanding amount, in respect of the

¶35

-2-

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 7561 of 2016

¶37

loan, is stated to be Rs.75,412/- as on 29.02.2016. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the aforesaid amount of Rs.75,412/- together with accrued interest from 29.02.2016 in five equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 28.03.2016, then the recovery steps initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶38

(ii) It is made clear that if the petitioner commits a default in respect of any of the installments, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondent bank will be free to continue the recovery proceedings against him from the stage at which they presently stand.

¶39

(iii) The respondent bank shall, within ten days from today, provide the petitioner with an upto-date statement of accounts so as to enable the petitioner to discharge the liability in accordance with the directions of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

das /17.03.2016

Biju.S v. Deputy Thasildar (R.R)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju.S v. Deputy Thasildar (R.R)

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

Omana Vs Union Bank of India

Navab Wajid Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Swaraj K.K. Vs Aluva Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Rep.by Its Authorized Officer

State Bank of Travancore Vs Chandran Nair P

Rajeev Babu C Vs Federal Bank

Nisa Nasar Vs Authorised Officer