Disposed

Sheeba v. Otttoor Service Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC8 Apr 2024WP(C)/12362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrower challenged exorbitant loan recovery demand of over Rs.53.5 lakhs on two loans and sought One-Time-Settlement, which the Bank said had expired. Court permitted fresh representations to be considered with a hearing and deferred further recovery action until a decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to make fresh representations within three weeks; Bank to decide within one month; recovery action deferred meanwhile.

Sheeba Vs Otttoor Service Co-Operative Bank — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12362 OF 2024

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

SHEEBA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O NAZIRUDEEN
RESIDING AT: ANAZ COTTAGE, NADAYARA KANAMB
DESOM, VARAKALA VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695605

¶6

BY ADVS.
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR
SAILAKSHMI MENON
SMT.AKHILA B.
JOTHISHA K.A.
AASHI K. SHAJAN

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 OTTTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK CHENNANCODU, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY: ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 695143

¶9

2SECRETARY, THE OTTTOORS SERVICE COOPERATIVE
BANK, OFFICE AT: CHENNANCODU, VADASSERIKONAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695143

¶10

SMT. AMRUTHA SURESH - SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 12362/24

JUDGMENT

The petitioner s ays that, she and her brother had availed of two loans of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/- respectively in the year 2008 and that the Bank is now asking them to remit a total amount of more than Rs.53.5 Lakhs, which is exorbitant. They say that, therefore, they preferred Ext.P3 application for One-TimeSettlement of the loan accounts, but that no action has been taken thereon; thus constraining them to approach this Court through this Writ Petition because, in the meanwhile, action for recovery of amounts has also been initiated against them.

¶16

2 . In response to the afore submissions made by Sri.Rajesh R. – learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that, since the petitioner

¶17

and her brother have been defaulting payment of the loan accounts, the amount has grown to the figure of Rs.53,51,202/-, as on 08.04.2024. He submitted that Ext.P3 cannot be considered because the One-Time-Settlement Scheme, under which it has been made, has now expired. He contended that, therefore, this Writ

¶18

WPC 12362/24

¶19

¶20

Petition is an experimental one, lacking any bonafides.

¶21

3 . When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions, it is

¶22

evident that, on one hand, the petitioner seeks the benefit of OneTime-Settlement Scheme, asserting that the amounts claimed by the Bank are excessive; while, on the other hand, the Bank takes the

¶23

stand that the said Scheme is now not operative.

¶24

4 . Obviously, therefore, the respective rival positions will have to be sufficiently balanced; for which, I dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions:

¶25

a ) The petitioner and her brother are allowed to make appropriate fresh representations before the Bank seeking reconciliation of the accounts and also for payment of the same under One-Time-Settlement – either under a Scheme or otherwise; and if this is done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by its competent Authority , after affording them an opportunity of being heard ; thus culminating in an appropriate order/necessary action thereon , as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month thereafter.

¶26

WPC 12362/24

¶27

¶28

b ) Until such time as the afore is done - if the petitioner is

¶29

to invoke her liberty reserved under direction (a) above - and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner and her brother, all

¶30

further recovery action qua the loans in question, will stand deferred; but clarifying that it can be taken forward, depending upon the decision to be arrived at by the Bank in terms of the afore directions.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RR

¶33

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

WPC 12362/24

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12362/2024

¶38

`PETITION`	`ER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`A TRUE COPY`	`OF THE LETTER TO CHIEF`
		`MINISTER OF K` `13.02.2024`	`ERALA BY PETITIONER DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF`	`THE LETTER ISSUED BY JOINT`
		`REGISTRAR CO`	`OPERATIVE TO ASSISTANT`
		`REGISTRAR COOPE`	`RATIVE DATED 28.02.2024`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF`	`THE PETITIONER'S ONE TIME`
		`PROPOSAL TO`	`1ST RESPONDENT DATED`
		`20.03.2024`

Sheeba v. Otttoor Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeba v. Otttoor Service Co-Operative Bank

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

Saleem P M Vs Nattika Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.308

Firos Khan R., S/O.Rafia Beevi Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Shiyad Salam Vs Decent Junction Service Co-Operative Bank

John Daniel Vs Kaduthuruthy Regional Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 4061

Smt:Rajeekrishna, Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Police Chief

Nagaroor Grama Panchayat, Vs the State Police Chief