High Court Kerala High Court

T.J. Ivanhoe vs The Kerala State Development on 24 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.J. Ivanhoe vs The Kerala State Development on 24 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27261 of 2006(U)


1. T.J. IVANHOE, (LOAN NO.TS XII 2/ALPY)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.),

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :24/10/2008

 O R D E R
                 C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                 --------------------------------------------
                      W.P.C. NO. 27261 OF 2006
                 --------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Writ Petition is filed challenging recovery proceedings for

recovery of balance arrears of loan due from the petitioner to the first

respondent. The case of the petitioner is that loan taken was for

purchase of a car and even though car was seized by the Corporation in

2000 for default, it was sold only in 2004. The inordinate delay in sale

of the car would have led to loss inasmuch as corrosion and other

damage to the car would lead to reduction in value. The Corporatoion

is accountable for the loss on account of delay in sale of the car.

However, counsel for the first respondent submitted that a surety for

the loan filed a civil suit and obtained interim orders from the Civil

Court against sale of car. It is only after the civil court lifted it’s orders

in 2004 that the Corporation could sell the car. If the Corporation was

prevented from selling the car on account of untenable litigation filed

before the civl court, then Corporation cannot be blamed for the loss

caused on account of delay in sale of car. If the guarantor is the person

2

who filed the civil suit and delayed the sale of car, then I feel recovery

should be continued against him also. In any case, having regard to the

fact that petitioner is a member of Backward community and the

business was a total fiasco leading to loss and destruction of car, I

direct the first respondent to permit settlement by waiving complete

penal and default interest and allow the petitioner to settle liability by

remittance of balance arrears due after adjusting payments and

recoveries, with six per cent interest per annum, provided the balance

arrears with such rate of interest are paid by the petitioner before

15.12.2008. However, if payment is not made as above, then recovery

should be made against the petitioner and guarantors who filed civil

suit with full rate of interest. The concerned Branch Manager will,

immediately on production of a copy of this judgment, give a

sta;tement of liability to the petitioner for settlement as above. If

petitioner is entitled to OTS benefits, it is open to the petitioner to avail

it in the place of this relief granted herein.

W.P. is disposed of as above.

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk

3