Kerala High Court
A. Saleena vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 21 October, 2017
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 27149 of 2018
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
A. SALEENA,
W/O.FAZILUDEEN A.V., SALEENA MANZIL,
PALAMKONAM, ELAMCODE, PERUMKULAM P.O.,
ATINGAL, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
SRI.S.SREEDEV
SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
SMT.NITHYA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL OFFICE,
STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING,
OVERBRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2. AUTHORIZED, OFFICEDR,
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL OFFICE,
STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING,
OVERBRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695001.
R BY SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA,SC,KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 27149 of 2018
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2)
DATED 21.10.2017 BY THE RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
nkr
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J
*****************************************************************
W.P.(C) No.27149 of 2018 (P)
*****************************************************************
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2018
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, besides perusing the record.
2. The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent Bank, assailed the Exhibit P1 notice. The amount overdue as against the mortgage loan is Rs.6,86,744/-.
3. The petitioner's counsel has submitted that the petitioner, despite her best efforts, could not repay the loan because of her financial difficulties. The petitioner thus wants this Court to direct the respondent Bank to receive from the petitioner the outstanding loan amount in instalments.
3. Before proceeding any more, I may observe that expansive as the Court's jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is; it does not, I am afraid, go to the extent of interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, and compelling the 2 W.P.(C) No.27149 of 2018 (P) respondent Bank to agree for instalments.
4. But the delays and difficulties in coercive process of recovery well known, the Bank's counsel, on instructions, has submitted that the Bank is willing to regularise the loan account, by collecting the overdue amount in ten equal monthly instalments, along with regular instalments.
5. So based on the Bank's concession, this Court disposes of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pay the accumulated dues in ten equal monthly instalments, starting from 07.09.2018. The petitioner will, of course, continue to pay the regular instalments. If the petitioner pays the instalments as shown above, the Bank, as agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account. On the other hand, if the petitioner fails to pay any single instalment within the stipulated time, the respondent Bank can proceed without recourse to this Court.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE nkr/13.08.2018