Allowed

Narayanan Thamburan Valappil v. the Vellarikundu Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC23 Feb 2018WP(C)/32129/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a sale proclamation for a business loan default. It granted relief permitting the petitioner to regularize dues by paying in ten monthly installments, keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance. The petitioner must agree to forfeit future benefits if they default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted ten monthly installments for total dues; recovery proceedings deferred if default-free; petitioner must commit to installment plan.

Narayanan Thamburan Valappil Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 32129 of 2017

¶6

-----------------------

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

NARAYANAN THAMBURAN VALAPPIL, S/O. KUNHAMBU, AGED 47 YEARS, KOLLADA, POST-KAMBALLUR, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE VELLARIKUNDU PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, S-539, POST-BHEEMANADY- 671 131 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KASARGOD.

¶13

3. THE SALE OFFICER, SENIOR INSPECTOR, VELLARIKUNDU PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,

¶14

S-539, POST - BHEEMANADY,671 314.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶16

R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIMAL K. NATH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

bp 26/2/2018

¶19

WP(C).No. 32129 of 2017 (M)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION NOTICE DATED 23.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER ADVERTISEMENT FOR SALE NOTICE DATED 6.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

bp 26/2/2018

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

¶28

W.P(C) No.32129 of 2017

¶29

----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2018

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner, who availed a business loan for 10₹ lakhs from the 1^st respondent Bank on 24.3.2016, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 sale proclamation dated 23.8.2017 and Ext.P2 paper publication dated 6.10.2017 issued by the 3^rd respondent and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to permit him to regularise the loan account by remitting the overdue amount in sixteen equal monthly instalments. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs.

¶32

On 9.10.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the 2^nd respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 1 and 3. This Court has also ordered that

¶33

W.P(C) No.32129 of 2017 2

¶34

confirmation of sale pursuant to Ext.P1 sale proclamation and Ext.P2 publication, in so far as it relates to the property owned by the petitioner (Sl.No.4 in Ext.P2) will stand deferred for a period of one month on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of 25,000/- at or₹ before the sale time contained in Ext.P2.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of the interim order dated 9.10.2017 the petitioner has already deposited a sum of 25,000/-₹ and that for remitting the balance amount, the petitioner requires a reasonable time.

¶37

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent on instruction would submit that as on date the total amount overdue comes to 1,73,150/- and the total liability in the₹ loan transaction comes to 1,95,402/-. If the petitioner is₹ ready to clear the dues within a reasonable time, the 1^st

¶38

W.P(C) No.32129 of 2017 3

¶39

respondent Bank has no objection in this Court granting a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

¶40

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶41

i) The petitioner shall pay off the entire dues, amounting to 1,95,402/- in the loan₹ transaction covered by Ext.P1, together with future interest, in ' ten ' equal monthly instalments, commencing from 5.3.2018 and the subsequent instalments payable on or before the 5^th day of the succeeding months. ii) If the petitioner is remitting the aforesaid instalments in time, without any default, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 sale proclamation and Ext.P2 publication in so far as it relates to the property owned by the petitioner (Sl.No.4 in Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance, so as to enable the petitioner to pay off the amount as above.

¶42

W.P(C) No.32129 of 2017

¶43

¶44

iii) In case of any default committed by the petitioner in remitting any one of the aforesaid instalments, it would be open to respondents 1 and 3 to proceed further with

¶45

the coercive steps, in accordance with law.

¶46

This judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner availing the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, namely Navakeraleeyam Kudisika Nivaranam, 2018, if he is found eligible, by making an appropriate application within the time limit specified therein.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶49

Narayanan Thamburan Valappil v. the Vellarikundu Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan Thamburan Valappil v. the Vellarikundu Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

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

Rayankutty Vs the Sale Officer

Sudhakaran Nair.S Vs Fact (Cd) Employees Co-Operative Consumer Store Ltd. E-285

Tresa Jacob Vs the Regional Manager, Hantex

Nusrath Patteri Vs the State of Kerala

Babu J. Vs Kerala State Road Transport

Kabeer Vs the Regional Transport Authority