Kerala High Court
Baby Mathew vs Kerala State Financial Corporation on 9 July, 2010
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9621 of 2010(C)
1. BABY MATHEW,S/O.LATE MATHEW,AGED 54 YRS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,KFC PERUMBAVOOR.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(R.R),KFC.LTD,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
For Respondent :SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :09/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 9621 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 9th July , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The case of the petitoner is that though he had been sanctioned a loan for a higher amount, only a portion of the same was availed initially and that since repayment was not effected on time, the respondent Financial Corporation proceeded with further steps causing the property to be sold in public auction as borne by Ext. P3, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earnest efforts are being taken to bring the position back to normalcy, for which the remaining amount of the loan is also required to be disbursed to the petitioner, which is stated as not accpetable to the respondent Corporation. The petitioner prays for a direction to be issued to the respondents in this regard, simultaneously seeking for a direction to quash the sale W.P.(C) No. 9621 OF 2010 2 proceedings .
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner has only remitted a small portion of the outstanding liability and that the steps taken by the respondents in view of default committed, are perfectly in conformity with the statutory prescription and also in terms of the agreement. The learned Standing Counsel submits that because of chronic default, the respondents are not in a position to release any further amount, more so, in view of submission of the petitioner himself that he is not in a position to clear the outstanding liability. However, it is also submitted that if the petitioner submits a concrete proposal as to the manner in which the liability is to be satisfied, the same will be considered by the respondents and further coercive proceedings will be pursued only subject to finalisation of such proposal.
4. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a proposal as aforesaid, before the second respondent as to the repayment of the balance amount, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on which W.P.(C) No. 9621 OF 2010 3 event, the same shall be caused to be forwarded to the first respondent and appropriate decision shall be taken thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
lk