High Court of KeralaWP(C)/22365/2015disposed of

Shamsudheen K. v. Kuttiyattoor Panchayath Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

2015-08-11Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/20TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22365 of 2015 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

--------------- SHAMSUDHEEN K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, KIDATHOTH HOUSE, CHEKKIKULAM P.O.KANNUR - 67.

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENTS:

-------------------

1. KUTTIYATTOOR PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KUTTIYATTOOR, KANNUR - 670 561.REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / ARBITRATOR OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 141.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BHARATHAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS R BY SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 22365 of 2015 (U) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

----------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 26.2.2014 IN ARC 230 / 2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 22365 of 2015 (U) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the first respondent Bank, apart from perusing the record.

2. The petitioner, a borrower from the first respondent Bank, assailed Ext.P1award directing realisation of ` 13,29,218/- along with 17.5% interest till the realisation of the amount.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, despite his best efforts, could not repay the loan amount owing to stringent financial conditions faced by him. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondent Bank to receive the outstanding loan amount in instalments from the petitioner.

4. Before appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the first respondent Bank, it is to be placed on record that expansive as the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be, I am afraid, it does not go to the extent of

W.P.(C). No. 22365/2015 -2interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, so as to compel the respondent Bank to agree for instalments.

5. Be that as it may, evidently being fully aware of the difficulties involved in realising the loan amounts through the process of invidious sale of the property, the learned counsel for the first respondent, to his credit, evidently on instructions, has submitted that the respondent Bank is willing to collect the outstanding loan amount in fifteen monthly instalments.

In the facts and circumstances, essentially based on the concession made by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to pay the entire outstanding loan amount in fifteen equal monthly instalments starting from 01.09.2015. Needless to observe that if the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time, the respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further without recourse to this judgment.

sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

W.P.(C). No. 22365/2015 -3-