Disposed

Hyder Ali K., v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC5 Nov 2019WP(C)/25610/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought to quash a notice and direct the bank to facilitate loan restructuring. The High Court permitted the petitioner to approach the bank for instalments if he deposits Rs.2,00,000/-, while maintaining the status quo pending the bank's decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to request bank for instalments subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-; status quo maintained for eight weeks.

Hyder Ali K., Vs the Authorised Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.25610 OF 2019(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HYDER ALI K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAAJI, KOTTENGADAN HOUSE, PANNIPARA P.O., EDAVANNA - 676 541. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGIE JOHNY

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANJERI TOWN BRANCH, NEAR DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANJERI - 676 121.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN SMT.ROSHNI MANUEL SMT.VARNA MANOJ

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No.25610 OF 2019(A) 2

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Dated this the 5th day of November 2019

¶15

Heard Adv. Sri. George Johny, for the petitioner

¶16

and Sri.Viju Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank.

¶17

The petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

¶18

"i) To declare that Ext.P6 is arbitrary and illegal and to quash the same;

¶19

ii) To issue a writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Bank to stop further proceedings including eviction of this petitioner from the residential property pursuant to Ext.P6 pending disposal of the writ petition;

¶20

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate directions to the respondent Bank to permit the petitioner to surrender and endorse bills receivable to the respondent Bank and further remit the interest in the loan account periodically so as to keep the loan account regular until the bills are honoured;

¶21

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate directions to the respondent to permit the petitioner to remit the entire outstanding dues to the Bank in monthly installments;

¶22

WP(C).No.25610 OF 2019(A) 3

¶23

v) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate directions to the respondent to issue an actual copy of the up to date detailed statement of accounts pertaining to the petitioner's loan account. and

¶24

vi) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶25

The petitioner states that the petitioner in

¶26

spite of adverse market conditions and insufficient cash flow; is interested in regularising the loan account while continuing to pay the regular instalments and for the said purpose seeks the indulgence of this Court to grant reasonable time to clear the overdue amount.

¶27

Sri.Viju Abraham, Standing Counsel

¶28

appearing for respondent bank submits that the writ petition is filed without making such request before the respondent bank. The petitioner, if proves bona fides in clearing the overdue amount and continuing to pay the regular installments, the respondent bank has no difficulty in considering the request of petitioner. It is argued that the instalments are agreed terms between the parties under the loan agreement and are binding

¶29

WP(C).No.25610 OF 2019(A) 4

¶30

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 petitioner if proves bona fides, the respondent bank would certainly consider the request of petitioner for granting or rescheduling the instalments.

¶31

The submissions made by the learned counsel are noted. The petitioner, since is not pressing the writ prayers, this Court is not proposing to examine the objection raised by respondent bank, 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 counsel 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 order:-

¶32

(a) The petitioner is given liberty to request within two weeks from today the respondent bank, by

¶33

WP(C).No.25610 OF 2019(A) 5

¶34

enclosing a copy of this judgment, for granting instalments/time for payment of the overdue amount, while continuing to pay the regular instalments.

¶35

(b) The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) within four weeks from today.

¶36

(c) Upon the petitioner complying with the said condition, the respondent bank considers the request of petitioner for granting instalments/time as may be warranted in this behalf.

¶37

(d) The instalments so facilitated by the respondent bank, it is needless to observe, shall be independent of regular instalments under the loan agreement.

¶38

(e) A decision on the request is taken and

¶39

communicated to petitioner within four weeks thereafter.

¶40

(f) This Court takes note of the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- by the petitioner and that a further condition of Rs.2,00,000/- is imposed for consideration of the representation. Hence to meet the ends of

¶41

WP(C).No.25610 OF 2019(A) 6

¶42

justice, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date for eight weeks from today. The petitioner, if commits default, the respondent bank is free to proceed in accordance with law and take possession.

SD/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

DCS

WP(C).No.25610 OF 2019(A) 7

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/01/2019 IN WP(C) 59/2019.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/06/2019 IN WP(C) NO.17002/2019.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-GENERAL/2019 DATED 18/07/2019.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 29/08/2019.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/09/2019 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION, MANJERI.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER PURPORTED TO BE ISSUED ON 06/09/2019 RECEIVED ON 17/09/2019.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PURPORTED STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE BANK EVIDENCING BALANCE AS ON 18/09/2019.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.1/2019/DMD DATED 23/08/2019 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ANNEXURE TO THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.1/2019/DMD DATED 23/08/2019.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TO EVIDENCE THE SEVERITY OF SITUATION.

Hyder Ali K., v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hyder Ali K., 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.J.Lali, Vs B.Andrews Prabhu

Balakrishnan.T Vs the Kottakkal Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited

Mariyumma Vs the Authorised Officer

Asok Kumar Vs Karamana Co-Opeartive Urban Bank Ltd.

Gopakumar v., Vs the Branch Manager, Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank

Kochi Refinery Evictees Construction Workers' Association (C.R.E.C.W.a) Vs M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited-Kochi Refinery