The Court dismissed the writ petition for recovery, holding that the petitioner failed to comply with directions in a previous order. Consequently, no discretionary relief under Article 226 is available.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2017/2ND JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 8192 of 2017 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
T.S. SANTHOSH,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O.T.V. SASIDHARAN, RESIDING AT THIRUNILATH HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682040.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.MAJEED
SRI.K.H.ASIF SMT.MOLTY MAJEED SRI.K.J.SHARATH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. M/S. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD., COIMBATORE REGIONAL OFFICE, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU-628 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
2. BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED, D. NO. 64/3334-A, CHITTOOR ROAD, NEXT TO SRI SUDHEENDRA HOSPITAL, KACHERIPPADY, ERNAKULAM-682 035.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SKG
WP(C).No. 8192 of 2017 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
SKG
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
............................................................. W.P.(C).No.8192 of 2017
............................................................. Dated this the 23nd day of May, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who is aggrieved by the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of defaulted loan amounts, had already approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.8284 of 2012 when the respondents had initiated similar steps on an earlier occasion. In the said Writ Petition, by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had granted the petitioner the facility of payment of the defaulted amount in installments, and to continue to pay the regular monthly installments as per the original loan schedule as a condition for keeping the recovery steps in abeyance. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not effectively complied with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns/23.05.17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given failure to comply with earlier orders.
Whether to grant relief in recovery proceedings where the petitioner has not effectively complied with the directions of the earlier judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.S. SANTHOSH
M/S. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
