Disposed

Vijayan P.R v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC7 Nov 2019WP(C)/25562/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking regularization of a loan account and stay of proceedings, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to request installment concessions from the bank upon depositing Rs.1 lakh, with a six-week moratorium on coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Rs.1,00,000; liberty to seek installment concessions; restraint on coercive steps for six weeks.

Vijayan P.R Vs the Authorised Officer — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.25562 OF 2019(U)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 VIJAYAN P.R HOUSE NO.128/12, NEAR KOOZHOOR TEMPLE, IRAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683541.

¶8

2 REMA VIJAYAN HOUSE NO.128/12, NEAR KOOZHOOR TEMPLE, IRAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683541.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.S. SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MANAPPURAM HOUSE FINANCE LIMITED, CHOMBRA ARCADE, OPPOSITE KALOOR BUS STAND, KALOOR ERNAKULAM-682 017.

¶12

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER MANAPPURAM HOUSE FINANCE LIMITED CHOMBRA ARCADE, OPPOSITE KALOOR BUS STAND, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682017.

¶13

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.25562 OF 2019(U)

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 7th day of November, 2019

¶19

Heard Adv.P.S Sidharthan for petitioners and Adv.T.Rajesh for respondents.

¶20

The petitioners pray for the following reliefs:-

¶21

“i. a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the loan account of the petitioners and permit the petitioners to clear the arrears of loan in equal monthly installments.

¶22

ii. a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent bank and 1^st respondent authorized officer to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 notice.

¶23

iii. issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶24

3. The petitioners state that the petitioners in spite of adverse

¶25

market conditions and insufficient cash flow; are interested in

¶26

regularising the loan account while continuing to pay the

¶27

WP(C).No.25562 OF 2019(U)

¶28

-3-

¶29

regular instalments and for the said purpose seeks the indulgence

¶30

of this Court to grant reasonable time to clear the overdue amount.

¶31

Adv. T.Rajesh, appearing for respondents submits that

¶32

the Writ Petition is filed without making such request before the respondent bank. The petitioners, if prove bona fides in clearing the overdue amount and continuing to pay the regular installments, the bank has no difficulty in considering the request of petitioners. It is argued that the instalments are agreed terms between the parties under the loan agreement and are binding unless otherwise changed on mutually agreed terms. In exceptional circumstances, this Court can grant additional instalments or reschedule the agreed instalments. But the case on hand does not present such exceptional circumstances. The petitioners if prove bona fides, the respondent bank would certainly consider the request of petitioners for granting or rescheduling the instalments.

¶33

WP(C).No.25562 OF 2019(U)

¶34

-4-

¶35

The submissions made by the learned counsel are

¶36

noted. The petitioners, since are not pressing the writ prayers, this Court is not proposing to examine the objection raised by respondent, namely substituting instalments in the place of already agreed instalments or change time schedule in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Keeping in perspective the stand of the Advocate appearing for the respondent bank and to meet the ends of justice, I am satisfied that the Writ Petition can be disposed of by this judgment.

¶37

(a) The petitioners are given liberty to request within two

¶38

weeks from today the respondent bank, by enclosing a copy of this judgment, for granting instalments/time for payment of the overdue amount, while continuing to pay the regular instalments.

¶39

(b) The petitioners are directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) within four weeks from today.

¶40

¶41

WP(C).No.25562 OF 2019(U)

¶42

-5-

¶43

condition, the respondent bank considers the request of petitioners for granting instalments/time as may be warranted in this behalf.

¶44

(d) The instalments so facilitated by the respondent bank,

¶45

it is needless to observe, shall be independent of regular instalments under the loan agreement.

¶46

(e) A decision on the request is taken and communicated

¶47

to petitioners within six weeks from today.

¶48

(f) The respondents are directed not to take coercive

¶49

steps for six weeks from today subject to petitioners complying with the above direction.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

WP(C).No.25562 OF 2019(U)

¶55

-6-

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.2019.

¶59

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 2.9.2019.

Vijayan P.R v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan P.R v. the Authorised Officer

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

Sabeela Beevi, Vs Director General

The South Indian Bank Ltd., Vs Station House Officer

Kamalamma Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Manju S. Vs Indian Bank

Priya Varma Vs the Authorised Officer

K.R. Usharee Vs Indian Bank