Dismissed

Lovis.K.G v. the Kuttanellur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC10 Jul 2024WP(C)/31481/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, bank borrowers facing coercive recovery proceedings, sought a writ for installment regularization. The court granted an opportunity for One Time Settlement. Coercive proceedings are deferred while the bank decides on the proposed settlement.

What did the court decide?

Directions to consider the One Time Settlement proposal and defer coercive proceedings pending such decision.

Lovis.K.G Vs the Kuttanellur Service… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 31481 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1LOVIS.K.G
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O GEORGE KOONAN HOUSE, OLLUR P.O.
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680306

¶8

2JEES LOVIS.K.G
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O LOVIS.K.G KOONAN HOUSE,
OLLUR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT -,
PIN – 680306

¶9

BY ADV K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE KUTTANELLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD KUTTANELLUR P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680014

¶12

2 SPECIAL SALE OFFICER FOR THE KUTTANELLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICE (GENERAL), AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR, PIN – 680003

¶13

BY ADV P.N.MOHANAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) No.31481 of 2023

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2024

¶19

The petitioners, who have availed financial advances

¶20

from the Kuttanellur Service Co-operative Bank Limited and

¶21

against whom the Bank initiated coercive proceedings for

¶22

recovery, have filed this writ petition seeking the following

¶23

reliefs:-

¶24

“(i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside Exts.P4 to P6 notices and calling for the records relating to same.

¶25

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to remit the overdue amount in 25 installments and thereafter to regularize the loan account.

¶26

(iii) Consequently issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to keep all further proceedings pursuant to Exts P4 to P6 in abeyance till regularizing the loan account.”

¶27

2. When this writ petition came up for hearing today,

¶28

counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may

¶29

WP(C) No.31481 of 2023

¶30

¶31

be granted an opportunity to settle the loan account through One Time Settlement .

¶32

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel pointed out that the petitioners had availed three loans, one loan in the year 2013 for 10 lakhs₹ and two loans in the year 2016 for 20 lakhs and 25 lakhs.₹ ₹ In the loan account of 10 lakhs, the outstanding amount₹ payable by the petitioners as on 09.07.2024 is 7,53,961/-.₹ In the loan account of 20 lakhs, the outstanding amount is₹ ₹45,23,746/- and in the loan account of ₹25 lakhs, the outstanding amount is 56,65,939/-. The total outstanding₹ amount payable by the petitioners as on 09.07.2024 would come to 1,09,43,646/-. If the petitioners make a proposal₹ for One Time Settlement, the same can be considered as per the Rules of the Bank, submitted the Standing Counsel.

¶33

WP(C) No.31481 of 2023

¶34

¶35

Taking into consideration the amount of liability incurred by the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners shall be granted an opportunity to opt for One Time Settlement as per the Rules of the Bank.

¶36

The respondents are directed to take a decision on Ext.P8 proposal made by the petitioners for One Time Settlement. Till the respondents take a decision on Ext.P8, coercive proceedings against the petitioners shall stand deferred.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of as above, leaving open

all legal issues.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) No.31481 of 2023

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31481/2023

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 22-0`	`OF NOTICE BEFORE ATTACHMENT` `5-2022 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE`
	`OF 2ND RE` `2023`	`SPONDENT IN E.P.NO.937 OF`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 22-0`	`OF NOTICE BEFORE ATTACHMENT` `5-2022 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE`
	`OF 2ND RE` `2023`	`SPONDENT IN E.P.NO.948 OF`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 22-0`	`OF NOTICE BEFORE ATTACHMENT` `5-2022 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE`
	`OF 2ND RE` `2023`	`SPONDENT IN E.P.NO.1922 OF`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY` `03-08-2022` `RESPONDENT`	`OF ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED` `ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF 2ND` `IN E.P.NO.937 OF 2023`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY` `05-09-2022` `RESPONDENT`	`OF ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED` `ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF 2ND` `IN E.P.NO.948 OF 2023`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY` `05-09-2022` `RESPONDENT`	`OF ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED` `ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF 2ND` `IN E.P.NO.1922 OF 2023`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY` `BY THE OFF`	`OF NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED` `ICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY` `THE PETITI` `CO-OPERATI` `06-03-2024`	`OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY` `ONERS BEFORE JOINT REGISTRAR` `VE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR DATED`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY` `BY THE JO` `SOCIETIES,`	`OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED` `INT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE` `THRISSUR DATED 15-03-2024`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/2024`
	`ISSUED BY` `SOCIETIES,`	`THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE` `DATED 07- 06-2024`

¶48

WP(C) No.31481 of 2023

¶49

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT R1(A)THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC NO.
815/21 DATED 30-04-2022
EXHIBIT R1(B)THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC
NO.1696/21 DATED 23-03-2022
EXHIBIT R1(C)THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC NO.
806/22 DATED 16-05-2022

Lovis.K.G v. the Kuttanellur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lovis.K.G v. the Kuttanellur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

P.M.Narayanan Vs Mukkom, Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.F 1241

Varghese P.V Vs Mannam Service Co-Operative Bank Limited- 3647

Sunny. M.K Vs the Hosdurg Primary Co-Op Agricultural & Rural Development Bank

Rohind Vs Special Sales Officer -3

Sudheeshkumar Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank (Kerala Bank)

The Vallikkunnu Service Cooperative Bank Limited NO.M4 Vs Kerala Cooperative Tribunal