Anthony v. Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies

Kerala HC3 Dec 2018WP(C)/6283/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a loan foreclosure sale under Article 226, seeking to quash the sale notice and get a chance to pay arrears. The High Court, noting the sale had occurred and the petitioner had not cleared dues, closed the petition with no prejudice, directing the party to approach the bank for redressal as confirmation by the Registrar was pending.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed, reserving the petitioner's right to move an appropriate application to set aside the sale already conducted.

Anthony Vs Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies — Property and Title | 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 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 6283 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANTHONY, S/O.PALISSERI MATHU, NEDUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR - 680007.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN (GENERAL) OFFICE, THRISSUR-680003.

¶11

2 SECRETARY, THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.329, HEAD OFFICE, CIVIL LANE ROAD,THRISSUR-680004.

¶12

3 SALE OFFICER, THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.329, HEAD OFFICE, CIVIL LANE ROAD,THRISSUR-680004.

¶13

BY ADVS. SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P.HARISH, SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 6283 OF 2018

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who availed a loan for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs in the year 2014, vide loan account Nos.CON, NFS20, NHS58, CCS & SCC, from the 2^nd respondent Bank, which is a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules made thereunder, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 sale notice dated 01.02.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent Sale Officer and seeking an order directing the respondents to grant him an opportunity to clear the arrears in monthly instalments and regularise the loan account. The petitioner has also sought for an alternative relief permitting him to pay off the liability in respect of Exts.P1 and P2 in easy instalments.

¶19

On 26.02.2018, when this writ petition came for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1^st respondent. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to respondents 2 and 3, returnable within three weeks. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the overdue amount comes to Rs.4,00,000/- and

¶20

¶21

WPC 6283 OF 2018

¶22

that the sale of the property was held on 01.02.2018 and the 2^nd respondent has purchased the property. This court granted an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 sale notice for a period of one month on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the respondent Bank within a period of two weeks. The said order was extended for two weeks on 26.03.2018.

¶23

On 27.11.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Bank submitted that the sale has already been conducted on 01.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.7,99,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions and accordingly, the matter is listed today for further consideration.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar and also the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Bank. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 3^rd respondent Sale Officer.

¶25

¶26

WPC 6283 OF 2018

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already complied with the conditions stipulated in the order of this Court dated 26.02.2018, whereby he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-. However, the petitioner is not in a position to raise funds to pay the dues in monthly instalments. The learned counsel would submit further that this writ petition may be closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move an appropriate application to set aside the sale conducted on 01.02.2018 and for other incidental reliefs. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, since the sale held on 01.02.2018 is yet to be confirmed by the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar, the petitioner shall move an appropriate representation before the 2^nd respondent Bank for redressal of his grievances and leaving open that remedy, this writ petition may be closed.

¶28

Recording the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is closed, reserving the aforesaid right of the petitioner.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

WPC 6283 OF 2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 1-2-18 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT INTIMATING PETITIONER OF THE SALE.

¶37

1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 08.10.2015. EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION APPLICATION FILED BY BANK. EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE.

¶39

TRUE COPY

¶40

P.A. TO JUDGE

Anthony v. Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthony v. Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies

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

Jamsheer V.P Vs Calicut City Co-Operative Bank

Ahammed Kutty Vs the Regional Transport Authority

K.J.Poulose Vs the Deputy Director of Diary Development

The Board of Directors Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies [ General]

Gopan Vs the State of Kerala

The Pallikkunnu Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd.No. C.350 Vs the Co. Operative Arbitration Court (Northern)