Dismissed

Anitha v. the Special Sales Officer No.Iv

Kerala HC1 Feb 2019WP(C)/940/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking to quash a summons issued by an Arbitrator and for flood relief. The Court held that Government moratoria applicable only to agriculturists do not bar the bank from invoking Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and the petition fails.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, fiat to proceed is refused.

Anitha Vs the Special Sales Officer No.Iv — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY,THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 12TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 940 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANITHA

¶8

AGED 48 YEARS W/O RAJEEV PALETHU, VADAMA, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.V.MAHENDRANATH SMT.M.VISHNUPRIYA SRI.R.SYLESHWAREN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE SPECIAL SALES OFFICER NO.IV CO-OPERATIVE SANKHAM ASST.REGISTRAR (GENERAL)OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM,IRINGALAKKUDA, THRISSUR.

¶13

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, ASHTAMICHIRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO 325, MALA BRANCH,THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.940/19

-2-

JUDGMENT

The petitioner who availed an overdraft facility for Rs.5 lakhs from the 2^nd respondent Bank in the year 2014, vide O.D.No.65, by pledging the property having an extent of 21.24 cents in Sy.No.245/2 of Vadama Village in Chalakudy Taluk with a residential building, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 summons issued by the 1^st respondent in his capacity as the Arbitrator on a reference made by the 2^nd respondent under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which has been numbered as ARCM No.78/2018. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to follow the directives of the Government of Kerala to flood victims and grant relief to the petitioner.

¶19

On 11.01.2019 when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court noticed that Ext.P1 which is under challenge in this writ petition is a summons issued by the 1^st respondent Arbitrator in respect of the 2^nd respondent Bank, in ARCM No.78/2018 filed under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative

¶20

W.P.(C)No.940/19 -3-

¶21

Societies Act. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for

¶22

the petitioner sought adjournment.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

The pleadings and materials on record would show that

¶25

the petitioner, who is a housewife, availed an overdraft facility for Rs.5 lakhs from the 2^nd respondent Bank as OD No.65 by pledging the landed property. According to the petitioner, the loan was taken to help the petitioner's husband who is an agriculturist. During the course of arguments, the fact that the overdraft facility in question cannot be treated as an agricultural loan is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The benefit under Government Order dated 18.08.2018 and the consequential Circular No.51/2018 dated 15.10.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have application only in respect of loans availed by agriculturists. In the instant case, the petitioner has no case that she is an agriculturist. As such the petitioner cannot claim any benefit under the said provisions.

¶26

Ext.P1 is only a summons issued by the 1^st respondent who is the Arbitrator on a reference made by the 2^nd respondent Bank under Section 69 of the Act, which has now been numbered as

¶27

W.P.(C)No.940/19

¶28

-4-

¶29

ARCM No.78/2018. The moratorium in Government Order dated 18.08.2018 and the consequential Circular No.51/2018 dated 15.10.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies referred to hereinbefore cannot interdict the 2^nd respondent Bank from making reference before the 1^st respondent Arbitrator, invoking the provisions under Section 69 of the Act.

¶30

In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

dsn

W.P.(C)No.940/19

-5-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 10.12.2018 OF THE ARBITRATOR.

¶39

RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL

Anitha v. the Special Sales Officer No.Iv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha v. the Special Sales Officer No.Iv

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

M.P.Parameswaran Nair, Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Abdul Assis M.I., Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sudha Lekshmi.M., Vs the Secretary

Abdul Khader T., Vs the Manager

Yatheendradas.P Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Election Commission

Abdul Salam Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Cum Regional Transport Officer