High Court of KeralaWP(C)/31953/2015disposed of

Muhammedali v. The Special Sale Officer

2015-10-20Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/28TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31953 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- MUHAMMEDALI AGED 57 YEARS MENAKKAL HOUSE, CHUNANGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD OTTAPALAM BRANCH, OTTAPALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678 001.

2. PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, OTTAPALAM BRANCH OTTAPALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

R BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, PALAKKAD DIST.CO.OP.BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10- 2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 31953 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 27/9/2014 IN ARC NO.247/2014. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 5/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONGWING ENGLISH TRNSLATION RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2015

JUDGMENT

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

The petitioner, a borrower from the second respondent bank, assailed Ext.P1 notice directing him to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, the outstanding loan 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 the stringent financial conditions faced by him. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondent Bank to receive from the petitioner the outstanding loan amount in installments.

Before appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the second respondent Bank, I

may have to observe that expansive as the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, I am afraid, it does not go to the extent of interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, so as to compel the respondent Bank to agree for installments. 5.

Be that as it may, evidently being fully aware of the difficulties involved in realizing the loan amounts through the process of invidious sale of the property, the learned counsel for the second respondent, to his credit, evidently on instructions, has submitted that the respondent bank is willing to collect the outstanding loan amount in eight monthly installments.

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 eight equal

monthly installments starting from December continue till 8 months. 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 Court. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE