Dismissed

Mujeeb Rehman v. P v Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank

Kerala HC19 Feb 2018WP(C)/5401/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in a loan recovery dispute challenged a sale notice and sought a court order for 15 monthly instalments to clear dues. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner failed to comply with previous orders granting instalment schemes.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as petitioner failed to comply with previous court orders granting instalment relief.

Mujeeb Rehman v P Vs Nilambur Co-Operative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 30TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5401 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUJEEB REHMAN V.P., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SHOUKATH ALI, VALIYA PEEDIYAKKAL, POOKOTTUPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SMT.LIGEY ANTONY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.(M859), NILAMBUR P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-679 329.

¶11

2. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.(M859), NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -679 329

¶12

3. V.P.SHANAVAS, S/O.SHOUKATH ALI, VALIYA PEEDIYAKKAL,POOKOTTUPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 332

¶13

4. V.P.RAZEENA,D/O.SHOUKATH ALI, VALIYA PEEDIYAKKAL, POOKOTTUPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 332

¶14

R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

24/02/2018

¶18

WP(C).No. 5401 of 2018 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.18288/15 DATED 30.06.2016. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.10.2017 EXHIBIT P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.10.2017 EXHIBIT P2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04.01.2018. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MATRUBHUMI DAILY EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 17.01.2018

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts 24/02/2018

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

¶27

W.P(C) No.5401 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2018

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner, who availed a loan from the 1^st respondent Nilambur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank in the year 2001 under the loan account No.ILS-28 for purchasing light and sound system, is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 sale notice dated 17.1.2018 and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Bank to grant him 15 equal monthly instalments to clear all the outstanding dues in the aforesaid loan account.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

The petitioner had earlier approached this

¶33

Court in W.P(C)Nos.34953/2005, 12048/2010 and

¶34

18288/2015 challenging the recovery steps initiated by

¶35

W.P(C) No.5401 of 2018

¶36

¶37

the 1^st respondent Bank in respect of the aforesaid loan transaction.

¶38

W.P(C)No.34953/2005 filed by the petitioner challenging the sale notice dated 16.11.2005 was disposed of by the judgment dated 29.3.2006 and the operative portion of that judgment reads thus:

¶39

Notwithstanding the non compliance of the conditions imposed by this Court, I am of the view that this writ petition itself can be disposed of in the following terms:

¶40

i) The order of stay will continue only if the writ petitioner continues to remit at the rate mentioned in the interim order i.e., 90,000/- per month. Once it is seen that the writ petitioner has discharged at least 85% of the amounts demanded by the bank as per Ext.P2, the Bank will supply the petitioner with a detailed statement of accounts and the petitioner can file objections, if any, to the same. The bank will consider the detailed statement of accounts, the objections and then determine the correct balance due to the petitioner allowing all possible concessions and remissions. Thereupon the petitioner will be given one more month's time for liquidating the balance amount so determined.

¶41

ii) It is needless to mention that in the event of default by the petitioner in remitting monthly instalments till he discharges 85% of the amounts

¶42

W.P(C) No.5401 of 2018 3

¶43

mentioned in Ext.P2, the petitioner will forfeit the benefits given to him in this judgment. (underline supplied)

¶44

In the year 2010, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.12048/2010 challenging the sale notice dated 5.3.2010 issued by the 1^st respondent Bank. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 24.11.2014 and the operative portion of the said judgment reads thus;

¶45

“Only considering the impecunious circumstance, it is directed that, the Bank shall issue a statement by registered post as on 10.12.2014 and shall grant the petitioner time to remit the entire loan amount in ten installments. The 1^st installment shall be paid on or before 24.12.2014 and thereafter; the due date of instalments falling on the 24^th of each succeeding month. If default is committed in two consecutive instalments, then the recovery proceedings shall revive and continue. On the satisfaction of the dues as per the statement, the Bank shall give a statement of the future interest from 10.12.2014 and the same shall be settled as the 11^th instalment.” (underline supplied)

¶46

Thereafter, in the year 2015, the petitioner had

¶47

¶48

W.P(C) No.5401 of 2018

¶49

¶50

challenging the notice dated 15.1.2015 issued by the 1^st respondent Bank in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 24.11.2014 in W.P(C) No.12048/2010 and also Ext.P11 notice dated 25.8.2015. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 30.6.2016. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment reads thus;

¶51

“7. Therefore, there will be a direction to the petitioner to pay off the entire outstanding amounts due to the 1st respondent Bank as per Ext.P11 and the interest accrued thereafter, in 10 equated monthly instalments starting from 25.7.2016, and the same date on the successive months.

¶52

Needless to say, if any of the instalments are defaulted, the Bank shall proceed against the petitioner and recover the amounts due by selling of the mortgaged property or any other assets which the Bank can proceed against the petitioner. In order to enable the petitioner to pay of the amounts due in monthly instalments, the Bank shall provide a statement of accounts to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.” (underline supplied)

¶53

From the averments made in the present writ petition, i.e., W.P(C) No.5401/2018, it could be seen that

¶54

the petitioner has not complied with the directions

¶55

W.P(C) No.5401 of 2018

¶56

¶57

contained in the judgment of this Court dated 30.6.2016 in W.P(C) No.18288/2015. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 sale notice dated 17.1.2018 issued by the 1^st respondent Bank. As per Ext.P4, the total amount outstanding comes to ₹13,35,293/- and the sale is scheduled to be held on 20.2.2018. As evident from Ext.P4, the 2^nd respondent, Special Sale Officer has initiated coercive steps on account of the default committed by the petitioner in effecting payment, in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 30.6.2016 in W.P(C) No.18288/2015.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is prepared to pay the entire dues in 15 monthly instalments and that he is willing to pay the instalments without any default.

¶59

The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P(C) Nos.34953/2005, 12048/2010 and 18288/2015. Despite the indulgence shown by this Court in those writ

¶60

W.P(C) No.5401 of 2018

¶61

¶62

petitions, he has not chosen to pay off the entire dues. The petitioner, having failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the aforesaid judgments cannot seek further relief, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶63

India. In such circumstances the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶64

It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner availing the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, if any, if he is found eligible in terms of that scheme.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶67

Mujeeb Rehman v. P v Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rehman v. P v Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank

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

D. Ramachandran Pillai Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sahadevan Vs Ponnani Shakarana Karshika Grama Vikasana Bank

K.M. Sebastian Vs the Manager

Nishanth.v.v Vs the Chief Recovery Officer

Viswanatha Mallan Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies