Dismissed

Radhamaniyamma v. Arbitrator/Junior Inspector

Kerala HC8 Jul 2016WP(C)/8064/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an auction notice and award by a banking recovery agent. The Court directed the petitioner to repay the loan in 12 monthly installments, failing which the bank can proceed with the auction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to remit outstanding amounts in 12 equated monthly installments. Upon failure to pay, the bank may proceed against the petitioner based on the attachment notice.

Radhamaniyamma Vs Arbitrator/Junior Inspector — 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 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8064 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RADHAMANIYAMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, PANDARAKALA (H), KALAYAPURAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. ARBITRATOR/JUNIOR INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN- 691 506.

¶11

2. THE SALE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOTTARAKKARA, PIN- 691 506.

¶12

3. THE TAMARAKUDY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2815, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN- 691 506.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.R. RAJESH. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 8064 of 2016 (G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC NO.3311/2015 DATED 05.06.2015 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.01.2016 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 8064 of 2016

¶26

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner availed a loan from the 3^rd respondent bank on 13.02.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The period of loan

¶29

is 5 years and the petitioner was repaying the amount by monthly installments. While availing the loan, petitioner has mortgaged 9.60 Ares of land with residential building in ReSy.No.410/14 in Kalayapuram Village, Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam District. Petitioner has defaulted repayment of the loan amount. Consequent to which, 3^rd respondent has approached the 1^st respondent and secured Ext.P1award. By issuing Ext.P2 attachment notice, bank attempted to execute Ext.P1 award. Thereupon petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition challenging Exts.P1 and P2.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. Perused the documents and pleadings.

¶31

W.P.(C). No.8064 of 2016

¶32

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition and also contended that Ext.P1 is an ex parte award secured by the bank without hearing the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has submitted that, Ext.P2 is initiated by the bank on the basis of Ext.P1 award secured from the Arbitrator and therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the bank in initiating action.

¶34

Having evaluated the fact situation and legal circumstances and the submissions put across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that, there is no illegality or irrationality enabling the petitioner to approach this court by invoking the writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, learned counsel for the petitioner expresses the willingness that the outstanding amounts will be paid, if installments are provided to the petitioner.

¶35

Taking into account the fact situation, I am of the considered opinion that the relief sought for by the petitioner can be granted. The petitioner has sought to repay the

¶36

W.P.(C). No.8064 of 2016

¶37

¶38

outstanding amounts in 25 installments. But I do not think that 25 installments sought for by the petitioner can be granted in view of Ext.P1 award secured by the Bank on 5.6.2015.

¶39

Therefore, there will be a direction to the petitioner to remit the outstanding amounts to the 3^rd respondent bank in 12 equated monthly installments starting from 5.8.2016 and the balance outstanding amounts on the same day of the succeeding months. If the petitioner fails to pay any of the installments, respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner based on Ext.P2. In order to enable the petitioner to pay the amounts in equated monthly installments, a statement of accounts shall be provided to the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent bank within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶42

smv 08.07.2016

Radhamaniyamma v. Arbitrator/Junior Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamaniyamma v. Arbitrator/Junior Inspector

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

Babu E.T. Vs Rahoof

Rahim Vs the State of Kerala

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

Sobhana Vs Kerala State Co-Op Employees

Private Bus Operators Association Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Wayanad

V.K.Mathew Vs the Deputy Director, Diary Development Department