High Court Kerala High Court

Thiruvalla East Co-Operative … vs The Kerala Co-Op. Tribunal on 1 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Thiruvalla East Co-Operative … vs The Kerala Co-Op. Tribunal on 1 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 849 of 2000(E)



1. THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE KERALA CO-OP. TRIBUNAL, TVM.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :01/10/2009

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                               V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                         Writ Appeal No.849 of 2000
               ....................................................................
                Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeal is filed by the appellant-Co-operative Bank challenging

the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the finding of the

Co-operative Tribunal that the borrower who has taken agricultural

loan is entitled to benefit under the Kerala Co-operative Agricultural

and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. The appellant’s contention is

that the appellant is an Urban Co-operative Bank and therefore, the

borrower is not entitled to benefit of the scheme. However, on facts the

Tribunal found that the loan is agricultural loan which is not denied by

the appellant. Appellant’s claim that it is an Urban Bank which is not

bound to give the incentive under the Scheme to the borrower is turned

down by the learned Single Judge by holding that primarily appellant is

a Primary Co-operative Society under the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Act and it has taken RBI’s approval for the banking business.

Even though counsel for the appellant contested the findings of the

2

learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground to interfere with the

finding of the Tribunal confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

Consequently Writ Appeal is dismissed.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

V.K.MOHANAN
Judge
pms