Disposed

Baby.K.T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2017WP(C)/2413/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges coercive action initiated by a Bank for repayment of a defaulted educational loan. The High Court permitted the petitioner to repay the outstanding amount in ten equated monthly instalments instead of the initial six or lump sum, balancing the petitioner's inability to pay with the Bank's recovery rights.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was permitted to pay the outstanding amount in ten equated monthly instalments starting from 5.4.2017. Any default would allow the Bank to proceed with recovery as per Sections 7 and 34

Baby.K.T Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/1ST CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2413 of 2017 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

BABY.K.T S/O. THOMAS, KOCHUTHOTTUNGAL HOUSE, POOMALA. PO., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680581

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PALAYAM PO., PIN-695001

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE PO., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERRY PO., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680582

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER THEKKUKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, KONATHUKUNNU PO., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680123

¶14

5. CANARA BANK ATHANI BRANCH, P.O. ATHANI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680581, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶15

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN R5 BY SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK SRI. GOPIKRISHNANA NAMBIAR,SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 2413 of 2017 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DEMANDING A SUM OF RS.7,95,998/- DATED 28.10.2016

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2017

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.2413 of 2017

¶28

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2017

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner's son had availed an educational loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the 5^th respondent Bank for studying B.Tech Aeronautical Engineering in the tear 2008. The course was completed by the son of the petitioner in the year 2013 and he was working as a trainee till 2016 and was not securing any salary. However, he got employment in the United Arab Emirates in the year 2016, and therefore, he has resources to pay the amount in reasonable equated monthly instalments. But, since, repayment was defaulted, Bank initiated proceedings under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is thus challenging the coercive action, this writ petition is filed. Even though petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 seeking payment of the amount in six instalments, according to the petitioner it did not attain any fruitful result.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned standing counsel for the Bank and perused the documents on record and pleading put forth.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the indulgence of this Court permitting the petitioner to repay the amount in 12 equated monthly instalments. Even though learned

¶33

W.P.(C) No.2413 of 2017

¶34

¶35

counsel submitted that, petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount under the OTS Scheme in equated monthly instalments, is stoutly opposed by the learned standing counsel for the Bank. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel that, the least possible instalment alone may be provided to the petitioner, since the petitioner is a defaulter.

¶36

However, taking note of the respective submission made across the Bar and bearing in mind the prevailing adverse economic situation petitioner is permitted to pay the outstanding amount in ten equated monthly instalments starting from 5.4.2017 onwards and the corresponding date of the succeeding months.

¶37

Needless to say, it any of the instalment is defaulted, Bank will be at liberty to proceed as per the coercive action initiated pursuant to Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala revenue Recovery Act and recover the amount in lump.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶41

dlk/23/3/

Baby.K.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby.K.T v. 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

The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) Vs Bijoy

Subair Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Amal F.R @ Amal Fasal Rahman Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education, Rep.by Its Secretary

Mannarcaud Kudumasree (Cds) Vs the State of Kerala

Sasikala Mohanachandran Vs State of Kerala

Anas A.R. Vs the Manager