Partly allowed

Rayankutty v. the Sale Officer

Kerala HC22 Feb 2018WP(C)/542/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a loan debtor against a co-operative bank, the High Court granted interim stay of sale proceedings conditional upon a deposit. Upon hearing, the Court directed the petitioner to clear overdues and future interest in three equal monthly instalments, directing the bank to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay overdues and interest in three equal monthly instalments starting 27.2.2018; recovery proceedings to remain in abeyance provided instalments are paid on time.

Rayankutty Vs the Sale Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 542 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAYANKUTTY, S/O.KUNHISOOPI, AGED 56 YEARS, KOOTHUMADATHIL HOUSE, CHENDI P.O., PANGU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) SRI.T.S.NEJIMUDDIN SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SALE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, P.B.NO.505, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322.

¶11

2. THE PERINTHALMANNA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, P.B NO.505, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322.

¶13

R1 & R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON

¶14

SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.J.SURYA SMT.BINI SARAMMA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 26/02/2018

¶16

WP(C).No. 542 of 2018 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2017.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts 26/02/2018

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

¶25

W.P(C) No.542 of 2018

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner, who availed a loan for 25 lakhs from₹ the 2^nd respondent Co-operative Bank in the year 2015 with a tenure of 8 years, 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.P1 sale notice dated 15.12.2017 issued by the 1^st respondent Sale Officer; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to clear the overdues in instalments; and to direct the respondents to regularise the loan within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶29

On 8.1.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 3^rd respondent. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to respondents 1 and 2 returnable within three weeks. This Court has also granted an interim stay of all further

¶30

W.P(C) No.542 of 2018 :2:

¶31

proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice for a period of one month on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of 1₹ lakh with the 2^nd respondent Bank within two weeks.

¶32

On 8.2.2018 when this writ petition came up for

¶33

further consideration, it was reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already complied with the conditions stipulated in the order of this Court dated 8.1.2018 by depositing 1 lakh. Accordingly,₹ the interim order was extended for a further period of one month.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 8.1.2018 the petitioner has already deposited a sum of 1 lakh out of the overdue amount of 6 lakhs₹ ₹ (approximate) as on 14.12.2017 and that, for clearing the

¶36

W.P(C) No.542 of 2018 :3:

¶37

balance amount overdue the petitioner requires three months time.

¶38

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Bank would submit that for regularisation of the loan account, the petitioner may be directed to deposit the entire overdue before 31.3.2018.

¶39

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

¶40

i) The petitioner shall pay off the entire overdues in respect of the loan transaction covered by Ext.P1, together with future interest,

¶41

in ' three' equal monthly instalments commencing from 27.2.2018 and the subsequent instalments payable on or before 27^th day of the succeeding months. Along with said instalments, the petitioner shall also pay the regular monthly instalments.

¶42

ii) If the petitioner is remitting the aforesaid

¶43

W.P(C) No.542 of 2018 :4:

¶44

instalments in time, without any default, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice shall be kept in abeyance, so as to enable the petitioner to clear the dues as above.

¶45

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 2 to proceed further with the recovery steps initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶48

Rayankutty v. the Sale Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayankutty v. the Sale 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

V.N.Ramanadhan Vs Thottippal Service Co-Operative Society Limited No. 634

Iqbal Vs Thrissur Serivce Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Aisha Suresh Vs the Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank

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

Tresa Jacob Vs the Regional Manager, Hantex

Sankaranarayanan Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies