In a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings for a defaulted housing loan, the court held that the petitioner's remedy lay in approaching the bank for further instalments after failing to pay under a previous regularization order. The writ petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 1139 of 2017 (N)
PETITIONER:
SAJINI M.J., W/O.SAJI MACHINGAL VELAYUDHAN, MANDAKATHINGAL HOUSE, ARIKANNIYUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 102.
BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY
RESPONDENT:
CAN FIN HOMES (P) LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MARVA ARCADE, MACHINGAL LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 1139 of 2017 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 1139 of 2017 (N)
Dated: 16th January, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings initiated for recovery of the housing loan availed from the respondent, which, admittedly, was defaulted. Earlier also the petitioner was before this Court and the petitioner was granted indulgence by Ext.P3 judgment, in which the overdue amount of Rs.1,86,649/- was directed to be paid with accrued interest in six equal and successive monthly instalments.
W.P.(C) No. 1139/2017
-2-
already been granted a regularisation as per Ext.P3 and the petitioner having not paid up the amounts, it is for the petitioner to approach the Bank for any further instalments.
The petitioner is left with such remedy and the writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
jjj 16/1/17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who defaulted on installed instalments after obtaining a prior order for the same instalment plan, is entitled to a further writ remedy for indulgence?
Whether the petitioner must approach the bank for further instalments if they fail to pay amounts under an existing court order?
Whether the writ petition challenging recovery proceedings due to partial payment under a previous order should be dismissed?
Sajini M.J.
Can Fin Homes (P) Ltd.
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
