Disposed

Rathy.v.Pillai, v. Managing Director

Kerala HC22 Feb 2019WP(C)/3794/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging demand notices in a chitty transaction. The court directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.31,77,800 in fifteen monthly installments, with recovery proceedings kept in abeyance provided no default is committed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.31,77,800 with interest in fifteen monthly installments; recovery proceedings to remain in abeyance pending timely payments.

Rathy.v.Pillai, Vs Managing Director — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3794 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RATHY.V.PILLAI, W/O. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, AZHEEKKOTTU HOUSE, PANDANADU P.O, CHENGANNUR.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.S.SREEDEV

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶11

2 BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, CHENGANNUR 689 121.

¶12

3 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

¶13

4 MANJU V MENON, PREETHALAYAM, KUTTOOR P.O, THIRUVALLA 689 106.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN ANTONY, SC, KSFE LTD.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

ARUN ANTONY SC KSFE ADV. SALIL NARAYANAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 3794 of 2019

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶22

seeking the following reliefs:

¶23

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to Ext.P1 demand notices and quash the same.

¶24

ii. Declare that the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 demand notices are arbitrary and illegal.

¶25

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to pay the defaulted amounts in installments.”

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel

¶28

appearing for the KSFE.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned Standing

¶30

Counsel that the petitioner is a guarantor in

¶31

respect of the chitty transaction in question and an

¶32

amount of Rs.31,77,800/- is due and time can be granted to pay off the amount in installments.

¶33

In the above view of the matter, this writ

¶34

petition is disposed of with the following directions :-

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall pay off the amount of

¶36

WP(C).No. 3794 of 2019

¶37

¶38

Rs.31,77,800/- in respect of the chitty transaction in question, with interest in fifteen equal monthly installments. The first of such installments shall be due on 28.03.2019 and the remaining installments shall be payable on the corresponding dates of the subsequent months.

¶39

(ii)If the petitioner is remitting the aforesaid installments in time, without any default, all recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, so as to enable the petitioner to pay off the entire dues in monthly installments, as above.

¶40

(iii) In case of any default committed by the petitioner in remitting any one of the aforesaid installments, it would be open to the

¶41

respondents to proceed further with the coercive steps, in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶44

sab

¶45

WP(C).No. 3794 of 2019

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 14-01-2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Rathy.v.Pillai, v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathy.v.Pillai, v. Managing Director

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

Achu J.S. Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs Sri.Muraleedharan, Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur

Nazeem v.P., Vs the Depot Manager

Sinson Louis Vs District Collector and District Magistrate

Ashok Kumar K., Vs the Chief Manager, State Bank of India

Lakshmi Priya Nair Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education