Abdul Razak V Vs. the Branch Manager

Abdul Razak V vs The Branch Manager

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 19, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1131357

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1131357
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Decided On: Feb 19, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Razak V

Respondent

The Branch Manager

Excerpt

.....though some initial payment were made, subsequently, he committed default due to financial constraints and; therefore, the respondent bank issued ext.p1 demand notice for a sum of 2,51,661/-, which was followed by proceedings under sarfaesi act. it was at this juncture, the petitioner had come up before this court and obtained ext.p2 judgment by which he was permitted to clear off the then outstanding arrears towards loan in eight equal monthly instalments. the petitioner would allege w.p.(c) no. 15901 of 2011 ..2.. that he has paid the amount at the rate of 22,000/- per month in eight monthly installments and; even after paying the entire arrears, the bank is proceeding against him with recovery proceedings. it is in this context, the petitioner has come up before this court.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent bank.4. it is true that by ext.p2 judgment, instalment facility was provided to the petitioner. but, that does not mean that he is not liable to pay the subsequent interest. he was repaying the loan at the rate of 22,000/- per month in eight instalments. the main contention of the respondent bank is that the subsequent interest also is due and; therefore, the petitioner is liable to repay the said amount. the petitioner has proceeded on the assumption that if the existing debt as on the date of ext.p2 judgment is paid w.p.(c) no. 15901 of 2011 ..3.. in eight equal monthly instalments, that will take care of the the entire liability. as the petitioner is liable to pay the subsequent interest also, this court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to clear off the liabilities towards the respondent bank in instalments. therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to clear off the existing liabilities in five equal monthly instalments starting from 02.04.2014. it is hereby made clear that the failure to remit any one of the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE19H DAY OF FEBRUARY201430TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 15901 of 2011 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- ABDUL RAZAK.V., S/O.HYDROSE KUTTY, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, MULLAMPARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MANJERI BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.

2. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. R1 & R2 BY SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1902-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.15901/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED, 19/8/2006 P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED, 30/3/2007 IN WP(C)NO.10605/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED, 30/3/2007 P4(A TO G) COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON VARIOUS DATES P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED, 18/9/2009 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15901 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2014

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the continuing recovery proceedings by the respondent bank, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2. The petitioner availed a loan of 1,50,000/- from the 1st respondent on 19.09.2001. Though some initial payment were made, subsequently, he committed default due to financial constraints and; therefore, the respondent bank issued Ext.P1 demand notice for a sum of 2,51,661/-, which was followed by proceedings under SARFAESI Act. It was at this juncture, the petitioner had come up before this Court and obtained Ext.P2 judgment by which he was permitted to clear off the then outstanding arrears towards loan in eight equal monthly instalments. The petitioner would allege W.P.(C) No. 15901 of 2011 ..2.. that he has paid the amount at the rate of 22,000/- per month in eight monthly installments and; even after paying the entire arrears, the bank is proceeding against him with recovery proceedings. It is in this context, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent bank.

4. It is true that by Ext.P2 judgment, instalment facility was provided to the petitioner. But, that does not mean that he is not liable to pay the subsequent interest. He was repaying the loan at the rate of 22,000/- per month in eight instalments. The main contention of the respondent bank is that the subsequent interest also is due and; therefore, the petitioner is liable to repay the said amount. The petitioner has proceeded on the assumption that if the existing debt as on the date of Ext.P2 judgment is paid W.P.(C) No. 15901 of 2011 ..3.. in eight equal monthly instalments, that will take care of the the entire liability. As the petitioner is liable to pay the subsequent interest also, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to clear off the liabilities towards the respondent bank in instalments. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to clear off the existing liabilities in five equal monthly instalments starting from 02.04.2014. It is hereby made clear that the failure to remit any one of the instalments will entail the continuation of recovery proceedings. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the subsequent interest also. It is also clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the parties for availing one time settlement W.P.(C) No. 15901 of 2011 ..4.. under the scheme, "Aswas 2014", introduced by the Government for which the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the respondent bank at the earliest with a proper representation. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Abdul Razak V vs The Branch Manager Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.V.Ramakrishna Pillai