Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. Vs the Auhorized Officer

Kerala HC25 Jul 2018WP(C)/22686/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a bank's possession notice, seeking directed instalment recovery to cure financial hardship. Court observed Article 226 cannot interdict contractual terms but, per the bank's concession, directed payment of dues in six monthly instalments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay accumulated dues in six equal monthly instalments commencing 25.08.2018; regular instalments to continue. Bank to regularise account; bank may proceed without court if two c

Anil Kumar v Vs the Auhorized Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C).No. 22686 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

ANIL KUMAR V AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, PULIMOOTTIL CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKAVU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BINU GEORGE SMT.HEMALATHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE AUHORIZED OFFICER THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P.B NO.130, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶11

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., OCHIRA BRANCH, OCHIRA, KOLLAM 690 526.

¶12

BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

¶13

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

¶14

WP(C).No. 22686 of 2018 (I)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF CORONARY ANGIOGRAM REPORT DATED 7/12/2017 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 11/12/2017 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF OP CARD DATED 12/11/2013 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 30/6/2018

¶17

JJJ

¶18

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 22686 of 2018 (I)

¶20

Dated: 25^th July, 2018

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent Bank,

¶25

assailed Exhibit P4 notice. The amount outstanding in the housing loan is Rs.6,59,000/-.

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 22686/2018

¶28

-2-

¶29

Before proceeding any more, I may observe that expansive as the Court's jurisdiction of 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.

¶30

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 the outstanding amount in six equal monthly instalments, along with regular instalments.

¶31

So based on the Bank's concession this Court disposes of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pay the accumulated dues in six equal monthly instalments, starting from 25.08.2018. The petitioner will, of course, continue to pay the regular instalments. If the petitioner pays the instalments

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 22686/2018

¶33

-3-

¶34

as shown above, the Bank, as agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account.

¶35

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.

¶36

Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶37

jjj 25/07/2018

Anil Kumar v. Vs the Auhorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Vs the Auhorized 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

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.

Suhara Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Chellamma Vs the Branch Manager, SBI

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