IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23476 of 2009(D)
1. BAIJU, S/O.SUDHAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 23476 OF 2009 (D)
=====================
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P16, by
which the mortgaged properties is scheduled to be auctioned on
18/8/2009.
2. On 14/11/99, mortgaging 24.5 cents of property
belonging to the petitioner’s mother, he availed of a loan of Rs.3
lakhs from the respondent Bank. Default was committed and in
ARC 92/02, award favourable to the Bank was rendered by the 1st
respondent. It is stated that in 2002 itself, proceedings were
initiated and at that stage, it would appear that the petitioner’s
mother approached this Court by filing OP No. 5983/03. That
original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, where
dealing with the complaint of the petitioner that she was not
served with a copy of the award, award was ordered to be
furnished and proceedings were ordered to be suspended in order
to enable the petitioner therein to avail of her remedies against
the award.
3. Although Ext.P4 award was served on the petitioner’s
WPC 23476/09
:2 :
mother, the matter was not pursued as allowed in Ext.P3
judgment. Neither did the petitioner’s mother liquidate the
liability. Recovery proceedings were initiated by Ext.P5 notice
issued on 16/2/2006 and then the petitioner’s mother submitted
Ext.P6 representation.
4. Subsequently, petitioner’s mother approached this
Court by filing WP(C) No.11929/06. That writ petition was
disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing consideration of her
aforesaid representation. In pursuance to the said judgment, the
matter was considered and Ext.P8 was issued quantifying the
liabilities at Rs.5,89,962/- and petitioner’s mother was allowed to
pay the amount in 10 equal monthly instalments.
5. Petitioner states that his mother paid an amount of
Rs.2,94,982 covered by Exts.P9 to P13 receipts. Thus, admittedly
out of 10 instalments, only five were paid and therefore the
liability was not fully discharged. Again, by Ext.P14 notice issued
on 25/5/2007, recovery proceeding were initiated and at that
stage again the petitioner’s mother approached this Court by
filing WP(C) No.20112/07. That writ petition was disposed of by
Ext.P15 judgment, directing that if the petitioner therein
WPC 23476/09
:3 :
liquidates the admitted liability any dispute as to discharge
satisfaction and execution of the award can be decided before the
Sale Officer. It was further directed that if such a dispute was
raised, the same will be disposed of. The direction herein was also
not complied with and it is stated that the mother expired on
15/8/2008. Now recovery proceedings are again continued by
issuing Ext.P16 and it is this notice, which is under challenge in
this writ petition.
6. Admittedly, liability has not been discharged. Award
rendered in ARC 92/02 has not been challenged and has become
final. Instalment facility granted by the Bank has not been
complied with and the direction in Ext.P15 judgment also has not
been complied with. It is despite all this when the sale is to take
place tomorrow, this writ petition is moved today and that too in
the afternoon. On the above facts, I am satisfied that there is no
illegality in the impugned proceedings and this writ petition is an
abuse of court.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp