Allowed

Vipin K.M. v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC13 Jul 2018WP(C)/20523/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged notices to regularise his bank loan. The Court, noting the Bank's concession to accept instalments, directed the petitioner to pay dues in fifteen equal monthly instalments effective 03.09.2018, allowing account regularisation upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to pay accumulated dues and future dues in fifteen equal monthly instalments, with account regularisation on compliance.

Vipin K.M. Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 20523 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER

¶7

VIPIN K.M. S/O. MOHANAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KALLUR HOUSE, THOLPETTI ESTATE, THOLPETTI P O, WAYANAD-670646.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SHYAM SMT.ARCHANA MOHAN SRI.S.AADHIRITHIQ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER WAYANAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KARTIKKULAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122.

¶11

2. THE MANAGER WAYANAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KARTIKKULAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT-PIN-673122.

¶12

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 20523 of 2018 (M)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27/12/2017 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED

¶19

17/3/2018 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 8/5/2018 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

// True copy //

PA to Judge

das

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 20523 of 2018 (M)

¶27

======================================================= Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, besides perusing the record.

¶30

The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent Bank, assailed Exhibits P1 and P2 notices. To have the account regularised, the petitioner has to pay Rs.11,62,035/-.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, despite his best efforts, could not repay the loan amount because of his stringent financial conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner wants this Court to direct the respondent Bank to receive from the petitioner the outstanding loan amount in instalments.

¶32

Before proceeding further, I may observe that expansive as the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶33

-2-

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 20523 of 2018 (M)

¶35

India is, I am afraid, it does not go to the extent of interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, so as to compel the respondent Bank to agree for instalments.

¶36

But, being aware of the difficulties involved in realising the loan amounts through invidious sale of the property, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instructions, has submitted that the respondent Bank is willing to regularise the loan account by collecting the outstanding amount in fifteen equal monthly instalments, along with regular instalments.

¶37

So, based on the Bank's concession, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the petitioner to pay the accumulated dues, along with regular instalments, in fifteen equal monthly instalments, starting from 03.09.2018. Subject to the petitioner's paying the

¶38

-3-

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 20523 of 2018 (M)

¶40

instalments as indicated above, the respondent Bank, as agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account. If the petitioner fails to pay any two consecutive instalments within the stipulated time, the respondent Bank can proceed further without recourse to this Court.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶43

das 13.07.2018

Vipin K.M. v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin K.M. v. the Authorised Officer

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

Abdul Azees Vs the Authorized Officer

P.E.Madhavan Vs Registrar Debt Recovery Tribunal

Vincent Joseph Vs the South Indian Bank

Mr. Harikumar Vs the Pathanamthitta District Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Joy M.V Vs State of Kerala

Shadeeja M.S. Vs State of Kerala