Disposed

Aneesh a v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC2 Jul 2018WP(C)/4978/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner borrowed from respondent Bank but failed to repay due to financial constraints. Petitioner sought to direct Bank to accept instalments. Court declined to interdict contractual terms but, based on Bank's concession to accept instalments, directed Petitioner to repay dues via four monthly instalments to regularise the account.

What did the court decide?

Directed Petitioner to pay outstanding loan amount and future dues in four equal monthly instalments starting 02.08.2018 to regularise the account; deemed disposed if instalments are not paid.

Aneesh a Vs the Authorised Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

WP(C).No. 4978 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

ANEESH A, VELIYIL (H), PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., LANDMARK-PATHIRAPALLY PARK, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688521.

¶7

BY ADV.SRI.K.C.SUDHEER

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, MUTHOOT HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TC NO. 14/2074-7, MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No. 4978 of 2018 (V)

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶15

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.11.17 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶16

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

¶17

sdr/5.7.18

¶18

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU J.

¶19

W.P.(C)No.4978 of 2018

¶20

Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent Bank, assailed Exhibit P1 notice. To have the account regularised, the petitioner has to pay Rs.1,71,000/-.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

But, being aware of the difficulties involved in

¶27

W.P.(C)No.4978 of 2018 2

¶28

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 four equal monthly instalments, along with regular instalments.

¶29

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 four equal monthly instalments, starting from 02.08.2018. Subject to the petitioner's paying the instalments in the manner indicated above, the respondent Bank, as agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account. If the petitioner fails to pay any single instalment within the stipulated time, the respondent Bank can proceed further without recourse to this Court.

¶30

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶33

Aneesh a v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh a 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Francis Rozario Vs the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank

O.U.Shiju Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Shajahan S. Vs Manager, State Bank of India

Usha Rani Vs the Authrosied Officer, Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

K. Jaleel Vs the Secretary, Taxes, Govt. of Kerala

Meera Vinod Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation