Dismissed

A.Unnikrishnan v. the Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Dec 2017WP(C)/16913/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a writ petition filed by a borrower against an order of the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies. The order mandated payment under a one-time settlement scheme. The Court held the petitioner cannot challenge the order as it was based on his own submission to pay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, thereby upholding the order dated 20.02.2017 of the 3rd respondent.

A.Unnikrishnan Vs the Nilambur Co-Operative… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 16913 of 2017 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.UNNIKRISHNAN.,

¶8

S/O. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS,

¶9

ANIKOTTIL HOUSE, CHOKKAD PO.,

¶10

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-679332

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.

¶14

NILAMBUR PO., PIN-679329, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

2. THE SECRETARY

¶16

THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NILAMBUR PO., PIN-679329,

¶17

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-675329

¶18

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIMAL K. NATH

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶20

ON 04-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sdr/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 16913 of 2017 (L)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ASHWAS, 2016 DATED 18.1.2016

¶26

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.3.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶27

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 31.3.2016 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- AND RS.2,50,000/-

¶28

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶29

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶30

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME, 2016 OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK

¶31

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.5.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶32

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2016 IN WPC NO.39814/2016 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶33

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.2.2017 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶34

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶40

W.P.(C).No.16913 of 2017

¶41

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2017

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

The petitioner, who had availed a term loan of 2,24,550/-₹ from the 1^st respondent Bank on 07.06.1995, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 20.02.2017 of the 3^rd respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of 1,50,000/- under the Navakeraleeyam₹ One Time Settlement Scheme by 31.03.2017.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents 1 and 2.

¶45

The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P9 order dated 20.02.2017, of the 3^rd respondent.

¶46

The fact that the petitioner had availed a term loan from the 1^st respondent Bank in the year 1995 and has defaulted repayment of the amount due, is not in dispute. The petitioner made Ext.P7 representation before the 3^rd respondent claiming the benefit of one time settlement scheme to clear the loan amount outstanding. By Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C).No.39814 of 2016, this

¶47

W.P.(C).No.16913 of 2017

¶48

¶49

Court directed the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the said representation with notice to the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.

¶50

Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, the 3^rd respondent conducted a personal hearing and after hearing the petitioner and also respondents 1 and 2, issued Ext.P9 order, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of 1,50,000/- under the one₹ time settlement scheme, without payment of interest or other charges, on or before 31.03.2017.

¶51

A reading of Ext.P9 order would show that, the said order is one issued based on the submission made by the petitioner that he is prepared to pay off the aforesaid amount of 1,50,000/- by₹ 31.03.2017.

¶52

In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P9 order before this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶53

In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

A.Unnikrishnan v. the Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Unnikrishnan v. the Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

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

Krishnappa Poojari Vs B.Puthu Poojari

Kunjukutty Vs Komalam

Kurian George Vs Annamma George

Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. Vs Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

C.Balakrishnan Vs Kasaragode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

R. Sivadasan Nair Vs the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers'Union Ltd.