Petitioner failed to disclose an earlier writ petition regarding the same loan default and could not fulfill repayment conditions. The court held the petition was not maintainable due to suppression of facts and lack of clean hands, dismissing it.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 2178 of 2018
PETITIONER
MUKESH P., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPATTAMURIYIL, MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689594. BY ADVS.SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.P.C.SHIJIN
RESPONDENTS:
WP(C).No. 2178 of 2018
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 2178 of 2018 (V)
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED 24.5.2016 TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 9.8.2016 U/S 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ALONG WITH E-AUCTION NOTICE DATED 4.12.2017 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.2018 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE POLICE AUTHORITIES.
jjj
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
W.P.(C) No. 2178 of 2018 (V)
Dated: 24th July 2018
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, a borrower, defaulted. Facing recovery proceedings, he first filed W.P.(C) No.4741 of 2017. This Court, then, through judgment dated 23.02.2017, allowed the petitioner to pay the arrears in monthly instalments—12. He again defaulted. Now, he has come up with this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.2178/2018
-2-
W.P.(C) No.2178/2018
-3-
counsel submits that the earlier writ petition was filed through some other advocate. And he had no knowledge about it. Perhaps, the counsel may not take the blame, but the petitioner must.
the petitioner, as rightly contended by the Bank, is not remedy less.
So I dismiss the writ petition with a cost of Rs.2,000/-, to be paid to the KeLSA, High Court of Kerala.
Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
jjj
24/07/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the petitioner's suppression of a prior writ petition and failure to fulfill repayment conditions?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to writ relief against bank recovery proceedings despite allegations of fraud?
MUKESH P.
REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
SANKAR IYER
CHITHIRA KUMARY
JAYAKUMAR
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
