Disposed

Gopan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2018WP(C)/7740/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash a sale notice and declaration regarding a disputed property sale by a cooperative bank. The court, noting the petitioner was a chronic defaulter, directed him to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- as a pre-condition to enable the Joint Registrar to consider his application to set aside the sale within 6 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- within two weeks; directed Joint Registrar to consider application to set aside sale within 6 weeks of payment.

Gopan Vs the State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | 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. 7740 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GOPAN, S/O.SANKARAN EZHUTHACHAN, KANKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680631.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.K.VISWANATHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003.

¶12

3 THE SALE OFFICER, THE THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.329, P.O.POOTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680004.

¶13

4 THE THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.329, P.O.POOTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN SMT. SHEEJA C.S., SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WPC 7740 OF 2018 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner, who availed a loan for Rs.15,00,000/- from the 4^th 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.P4 communication dated 01.02.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent Sale Officer; and seeking a declaration that the sale of the property having an extent of 2.25 ares in Re.Sy.No.6/28 of Vilvattom Village, Thrissur Taluk, sold on 25.01.2018 by the 3^rd respondent, is liable to be set aside on the ground of material irregularity and fraud. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Joint Registrar to consider Ext.P5 application and to pass appropriate orders.

¶18

On 07.03.2018, when this writ petition came up for

¶19

admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 3 and 4, returnable within three weeks.

¶20

WPC 7740 OF 2018 3

¶21

On 08.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Bank, on instructions, submitted that the sale of the property offered as security was conducted on 01.02.2018 for Rs.20,45,883/-.

¶22

On 15.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Bank pointed out that after availing a loan for Rs.15,00,000/from the Bank on 17.04.2015, the only remittance made by the petitioner is for a sum of Rs.33,410/- which was made on 18.05.2015. Relying on the judgment of a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another (2002) 3 SCC 496 , the learned counsel would contend that a chronic defaulter like the petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

In the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner could not pay the instalments regularly because of the sudden collapse of his business of making gold ornaments. The fact that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter is not disclosed in this writ petition.

¶24

WPC 7740 OF 2018 4

¶25

On 22.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit as to the remittance already made after availing a housing loan for Rs.15 lakhs from the 4^th respondent in the year 2015. Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit dated 13.11.2018 has been filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated as follows;

¶26

“3. I had paid the 1^st instalment of the loan and there after I could not pay the loan instalments.

¶27

I availed the loan, calculating that the loan instalment of Rs.30,000 could be paid from the income derived from the business of making of gold ornaments. But, unfortunately, North Indian dealer who used to collect gold ornaments from me was involved in a case and the order placed by him were cancelled. My business, centered around the said dealer stopped and resulted in collapse of my business. This is the reason, why I could not remit loan instalments. There is no wilful laches or negligence on my part in non-payment of loan instalments.”

¶28

On 22.11.2018, when this writ petition came up for

¶29

further consideration, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, on instructions, submitted that the value of the property shown in Exts.P2 and P3 is fixed with reference to the value of 2.25 Ares of

¶30

WPC 7740 OF 2018 5

¶31

property along with residential building shown in the sale deed, which is deposited with the Bank. The learned counsel also submitted that though the petitioner is a chronic defaulter, if he is prepared to pay off the entire dues in five equal monthly instalments, the Bank has no objection in this Court granting him such an opportunity for repayment.

¶32

On 28.11.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the 2^nd respondent Joint Registrar as to whether Ext.P5 request made by the petitioner is still pending consideration.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Bank. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 3^rd respondent Sale Officer.

¶34

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the 2^nd respondent, would submit that Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner is still pending consideration.

¶35

WPC 7740 OF 2018 6

¶36

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Bank would submit that, since the sale conducted on 01.02.2018 is yet to be confirmed by the 2^nd respondent Joint Registrar and since Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 2^nd respondent, appropriate orders may be passed for consideration of that representation, provided the petitioner shows his bonafides by remitting a portion of the amount covered by Ext.P1 demand notice.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the 4^th respondent Bank within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, as a pre-condition for the 2^nd respondent considering Ext.P5 application.

¶38

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

¶39

(i). Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the 4^th respondent Bank.

¶40

(ii). Thereafter the 2^nd respondent Joint Registrar shall

¶41

WPC 7740 OF 2018 7

¶42

consider Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 4^th respondent Bank and take an appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date of such payment and production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶43

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 and it is for the 2^nd respondent Joint Registrar to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with the law.

¶44

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

WPC 7740 OF 2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DA	NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TED 25.04.2016.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 3RD RESPONDEN	SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY T.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE IN THE MALAYALA M DATED 18.01.2018.	SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED ANORAMA DAILY NEWSPAPER
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 01.02.2018.	LETTER ISSUED BY THE THE PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER TO BEFORE 2ND RESPON	APPLICATION FILED BY SET ASIDE THE SALE DENT DATED 05.02.2018.

¶51

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶52

TRUE COPY

¶53

P.A. TO JUDGE

Gopan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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]

Anthony Vs Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies

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