Disposed

Shaheerudeen.S v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC26 Jul 2018WP(C)/24322/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging a recovery notice, the petitioner sought a direction for the bank to accept instalment payments. Rejecting jurisdiction to override contractual terms, the court accepted the bank's concession and directed the petitioner to repay dues in seven instalments to regularise the account.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to pay accumulated loan dues in seven equal monthly instalments starting from 25.08.2018 to regularise the account; failure to pay entitles the bank to proceed without cour

Shaheerudeen.S Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

PETITIONER(S)

¶6

SHAHEERUDEEN.S S/O. SEYYAD KUNJU, AGED 48 YEARS, 'GREESHMAM', T.C 20/1505, SASTRI NAGAR, CHERUKKODE, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, OVERBRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KARAMANA BRANCH, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.

¶11

R BY SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 24322 of 2018 (M)

¶14

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM NIMS HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 02.06.2016. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. KSCB/TRO/SA/KBR/3283 DATED 13.03.2018. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04.07.2018. EXHIBIT P3(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P3.

¶17

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

// True copy //

PA to Judge

das

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶22

W.P.(C). No. 24322 of 2018 (M)

¶23

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2018

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent Bank, assailed the Exhibit P3 notice. To have the loan account regularised, the petitioner has to pay Rs.5,75,568/-.

¶27

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

¶28

Before proceeding any more, I may observe that

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 24322 of 2018 (M)

¶30

-2-

¶31

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.

¶32

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 seven equal monthly instalments, along with regular instalments.

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 24322 of 2018 (M)

¶35

-3-

¶36

continue to pay the regular instalments. If the petitioner pays the instalments as shown above, the Bank, as agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account. On the other hand, if the petitioner fails to pay any single instalment within the stipulated time, the respondent

¶37

Bank can proceed without recourse to this Court.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶40

das 14.08.2018

Shaheerudeen.S v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheerudeen.S v. the Authorized Officer

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

Suhara Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Anil Kumar v Vs the Auhorized Officer

Chellamma Vs the Branch Manager, SBI

Sajeesh K. Vs State of Kerala

Sihab P Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

M/S.Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sgst Department