Disposed

Agi George v. the Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

Kerala HC4 Apr 2018WP(C)/8233/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging coercive action under loan recovery proceedings, the court allowed the petitioners an extension to pay outstanding interest in three equated monthly instalments. The court warned of resuming proceedings upon failure and directed regular EMI payments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to pay outstanding interest in three equated monthly instalments starting 24.04.2018; failure leads to resumption of proceedings.

Agi George Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8233 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 AGI GEORGE, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM P.O., VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 ALEX GEORGE, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM P.O., VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3 ANNIE GEORGE, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM P.O., VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE, SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN, SMT.A.MINI JOSEPH.

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM- 682 017.

¶10

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM- 683 542.

¶11

3. THE MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 584.

¶12

4. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033. BY SRI.BASANT BALAJI, SC. SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

rs.

¶14

06/04/2018.

¶15

WP(C).No. 8233 of 2018 (D)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS WITH REG OF THE PETITIONER	PROVISIONAL STATEMENT OF ARD TO THE LOAN NO.150140410 S.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BY FEBRUARY 2018.	SECTION 7 NOTICE ISSUED TO THE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ON
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE AN AMOUNT OF RS. PETITIONER ISSUED	SECTION 34 NOTICE DEMANDING 4,02,14,983/- FROM THE 1ST BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER BY FEBRUARY 2018.	SECTION 7 NOTICE ISSUED TO THE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ON
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 PETITIONER ISSUED	SECTION 34 NOTICE DEMANDING ,02,14,983/- FROM THE 2ND BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER BY FEBRUARY 2018.	SECTION 7 NOTICE ISSUED TO THE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ON
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 PETITIONER ISSUED	SECTION 34 NOTICE DEMANDING ,02,14,983/- FROM THE 3RD BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTED BETWEEN	AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 12/01/2018 THE 1ST PETITIONER AND DANI D.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE BANK, THODUPUZHA	CHEQUE BEARING NO.190302 OF FEDERAL BRANCH ISSUED BY DANI D.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE SOU	CHEQUE RETURN MEMO DATED 21/03/2018 TH INDIAN BANK, VAZHAKULAM BRANCH.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs. 06/04/2018.

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶24

========================

¶25

W.P.(C) No.8233 of 2018

¶26

======================== Dated this the 4^th day of April 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioners 1 and 2 availed a loan from the 3^rd respondent, amounting to Rs.3,46,00,000/- by creating an equitable mortgage by petitioners 2 and 3. Admittedly repayment was not made in terms of the agreement and consequent to which, the respondents have initiated action under Section 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, evident from Exts.P2 to P7. It is thus challenging the coercive action and also seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

When this writ petition came up for admission, proceedings pertaining to Exts.P2 to P7 was stayed on condition that petitioners pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within two weeks. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the same could not be paid due to financial stringency and some time may be granted for making the said payment. It is also submitted that an amount of 67,04,900/- is remaining due from the petitioner towards interest as on 1.3.2018.

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C) No.8233 of 2018

¶32

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KFC and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time for making the payment of the interest specified above. Learned Standing Counsel for the KFC also submitted that if the interest amount is paid, rescheduling of the loan can be done.

¶34

Having evaluated the situation and taking into account the adverse financial as well as the economic situation prevailing in the community, petitioner is permitted to pay the outstanding amount towards interest in three equated monthly instalments, starting from 24.4.2018 and on the corresponding date of the succeeding months. Needless to say, if any of the instalment is violated, respondents will be at liberty to resurrect the proceedings pertaining to Exts.P2 to P7 and recover the amount in lump. I also make it clear that if the petitioner is making the payment directly to KFC, the recovery charges shall be confined to 1% of the total amount paid. If the petitioner makes the payment as is directed above, the respondents shall take into account the other adverse aspects and make an attempt

¶35

W.P.(C) No.8233 of 2018

¶36

¶37

to re-schedule the loan. It is also make clear that the petitioners

¶38

shall pay the regular EMI at the earliest possible time.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

Sd/

¶41

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

jm/

\ True copy \

PA to Judge

W.P.(C) No.8233 of 2018

¶46

Agi George v. the Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agi George v. the Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

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

Johny Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Anil Sooraj Vs Government of Kerala

Joseph Antony Anil Vs Registrar of Companies(Kerala)

M/Snavin Constructions Corporation Vs Shinamol

Louin M.O Vs Union of India

Lijey B.K. Vs Superintendent, Kozhikode Medical College Hospital