Disposed

Mercy George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2017WP(C)/24765/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a default in payment for a residential house purchased from GCDA, the High Court held that repeated approaches for price reconsideration cannot stall eviction. The court directed the petitioner to clear arrears and interest via 15 instalments within three months, conditioned on no further default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay 15 monthly instalments of arrears and interest starting 16.10.2017 along with regular EMIs without default; recovery proceedings stayed on condition of compliance.

Mercy George 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/24TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 24765 of 2017 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MERCY GEORGE, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.MAVUNGAL JACOB GEORGE, B19, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, II PHASE, K.K.NAGAR, KUNJATTUKARA, EDATHALA (N) P.O., ALUVA-682564.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.S.SUJINI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA) KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.

¶12

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA R2 BY SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

WP(C).No. 24765 of 2017 (U)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18-05-2006 FOR RS.1,55,000/-
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.38340/2010, DATED 12-01-2011.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29-09-2011.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN, GCDA DATED 04-05-2012.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09-2012 IN WP(C)NO.1012/2012.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28-04-2015.
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, SENT TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT OFFICE NO.C7/REV/4676/08/EHS- II/II-19/GCDA DATED 25-05-2017.
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13-06-2017 AND 15-06-2017 ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NUMBERED AS C7/REV/4676/EHS-11/11-19/GCDA DATED 21-06-2017.
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-07-2017 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION AND NOTES DATED 17-07-2017.
RESPONDENTS'	EXHIBITS : NIL.
	//TRUE COPY//
	P.S. TO JUDGE

¶19

mbr/

¶20

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 24765 of 2017 (U)

¶22

Dated: 15^th September, 2017

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner, admittedly, entered into an agreement for purchase of a property with a residential house from the respondent. The petitioner's contention is that though the price of the house was advertised as Rs.6,20,476/-, the petitioner was forced to sign an agreement for an amount of Rs.8,73,725/-. However, it is admitted that the petitioner had executed an agreement and obtained possession of the house.

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) submits that there was an enhancement by the time the agreement was executed and it was with full knowledge that the petitioner had entered into the agreement. There is a

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 24765/2017

¶27

-2-

¶28

total outstanding of Rs.14,25,256/- for reason of the default committed by the petitioner in paying the Equated Monthly Instalments from 02.04.2013.

¶29

The petitioner submits that many amenities promised by the GCDA were not provided to the petitioner's residential premises. If that is the contention, the petitioner would have to take up the matter before the Civil Court, as it leads to a claim of violation of terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the GCDA. The petitioner had also approached this Court many a time seeking consideration of the representation claiming that the price fixed is exorbitant. Though Exts.P4 and P5 judgments directed consideration of representation, nothing was done. The petitioner also did not seek for compliance of the directions. At every point, when eviction is threatened for reason of default, the

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 24765/2017

¶31

-3-

¶32

petitioner approaches this Court and obtains an order for consideration of representation, thus effectively stalling eviction and escaping from the liability to pay up the instalments. This cannot be permitted to be continued.

¶33

Considering the fact that there is an agreement entered into between the GCDA and the petitioner and there were also other persons who had purchased the property at the very same price, there can be no consideration of the representation by the GCDA, is the contention taken up by the learned Standing Counsel, which is found to be acceptable by this Court.

¶34

The total outstanding is said to be

¶35

Rs.14,25,256/- and the arrears Rs.4,51,277/-. The respondent shall grant fifteen monthly instalments for the payment of the arrears starting from 16.10.2017

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 24765/2017

¶37

-4-

¶38

and continued on the 16^th of the successive months, which shall be paid along with the regular EMIs, with payment of interest on the defaulted arrears, every three months, as accruing in the account. The recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the remittances as per this order are made without any default. On the petitioner making two defaults in repaying either the instalments or the regular EMIs, the recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶40

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

jjj 15/9/17

Mercy George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mercy George 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Father Manual Road Residents Association Vs Anuja.a.S

R.Santhosh Kumar Vs Smt.Mithra

George Mathew Vs Chairman and Managing Director, New Inda

Benny Augustine Vs Ajesh

Jithesh Vs the District Collector

Balakrishnan D. Vs Punjab National Bank