IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16858 of 2009(B)
1. C.VIJAYAKUMAR, PRODUCTION TECHNICIAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE NEYYATTINKARA, CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE SR.ASSISTANT MANAGER (P&HRD),
3. PREMAKUMARAN NAIR, PALLIMANGALAM,
4. BHADRA DEVI M.L., W/O.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.16858 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a surety for a loan availed of by the 3rd
respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent committed default,
and thereupon, the 1st respondent initiated recovery proceedings,
and on receipt of communication from the 1st respondent, th 2nd
respondent started recovery from the petitioner’s salary.
2. Referring to Ext.P2, the petitioner submits that recovery
has been effected from his salary during the last 48 months. It is
stated that such recovery is impermissible under Section 60 of the
CPC. Yet another contention that is raised is that the 4th respondent
has mortgaged her properties being the wife of the principal debtor
and one of the sureties. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent, the
principal debtor, is still an employee of the 2nd respondent and no
recovery proceedings has been initiated against him.
3. If, as stated by the petitioner, the amount has been
recovered in excess of what is statutorily permissible, the petitioner
WP(C) No.16858/2009
-2-
should first raise this plea before the 2nd respondent and seek
stoppage of further recovery. This has not been done. Therefore,
at this stage, I do not think that this Court will be justified in
interfering with the recovery. Be that as it may, if the 3rd
respondent, the principal debtor, is also in service, there is no
reason why respondents 1 & 2 should not pursue recovery from the
3rd respondent as well. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd
respondent Bank to pursue remedies against the 3rd respondent.
Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing that the petitioner
will move respondents 1 & 2 for the aforesaid reliefs, in which
event, the concerned respondent shall consider the matter, and take
necessary steps in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg