Disposed

Suhara v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jul 2018WP(C)/19556/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a possession notice and sought a direction for instalment repayment due to financial hardship. The Court declined to interdict contractual terms but disposed of the petition based on the Bank's concession to regularize the account via a specific instalment schedule, with strict consequences for default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh in one month and balance dues in six equal monthly instalments starting 25.09.2018, subject to Bank's agreement to regularize account if paid.

Suhara Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1940

¶4

WP(C).No. 19556 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

SUHARA W/O. M. MUHAMMED, AGED 63 YEARS, KAMBERVALAPPIL HOUSE, MEEPADAM, CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV.SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

¶8

RESPONDENTS :

¶9

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, CHELAKKARA BRANCH, TRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B. NO. 30, FEDERAL TOWERS, T.B. ROAD, SAKTHANTHAMBURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR -1.

¶11

R1,R2 BY ADV. SMT.O.M.SHALINA

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 19556 of 2018 (T)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22/03/2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶17

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSIONS NOTICE DATED 21/05/2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶18

JJJ

¶19

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 19556 of 2018 (T)

¶21

Dated: 25^th July, 2018

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶24

learned counsel for the respondent Bank, besides perusing the record.

¶25

The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent

¶26

Bank, assailed Exhibit P2 notice. The amount outstanding is Rs.2,59,904/- .

¶27

The petitioner's counsel has submitted that the petitioner, despite her best efforts, could not repay the loan because of her stringent financial conditions. The petitioner thus wants this Court to direct the respondent Bank to receive

¶28

from the petitioner the outstanding loan amount in instalments.

¶29

Before proceeding any more, I may observe that

¶30

W.P.(C) No.19556/2018

¶31

-2-

¶32

expansive as the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is; it does not, I am afraid, go to the extent of interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, and compelling the respondent Bank to agree for instalments.

¶33

But the delays and difficulties in coercive process of recovery well known, the Bank's counsel, on instructions, has submitted that the Bank is willing to regularise the loan account, by collecting Rs.1 lakh in one month and the balance accumulated dues in six equal monthly instalments, along with regular instalments.

¶34

So based on the Bank's concession this Court disposes of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1 lakh in one month and the balance accumulated dues in six equal monthly instalments, starting from 25.09.2018. The petitioner will, of course, continue to pay the regular instalments. If the

¶35

W.P.(C) No.19556/2018

¶36

-3-

¶37

petitioner pays the instalments as shown above, the Bank, as

¶38

agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account.

¶39

On the other hand, if the petitioner fails to pay any two consecutive instalments within the stipulated time, the respondent Bank can proceed without recourse to this Court.

¶40

Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶41

jjj 25/07/2018

Suhara v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhara v. the Federal 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

Mukesh P Vs Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank

P.H. Kasim Vs M/S. South Indian Bank

Jayan.R Vs the Thiruvananthapuram Distirct Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Anil Kumar v Vs the Auhorized Officer

Chellamma Vs the Branch Manager, SBI

M/S. New Sivasakthi Paints Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Kollam