Francis M.I vs The Authorised Officer on 26 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24625 of 2009(W)


1. FRANCIS M.I, S/O. INASU, AGED 42 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
                       ...       Respondent

2. TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :26/08/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ........................................................................
                     W.P.(C)No. 24625 OF 2009
              .........................................................................
                   Dated this the 26th August, 2009


                                  J U D G M E N T

The petitioner along with his wife had availed a loan from

the respondent Bank in September, 1998. But repayment could

not be effected as scheduled, under which circumstances, the

respondent Bank proceeded with coercive steps under the

Revenue Recovery Act, which in turn is sought to be intercepted

in the present Writ Petition.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank as

well.

3. After considering the facts and circumstances, the

petitioner is permitted to wipe out the entire liability in a phased

manner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to remit a sum of

Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) on or before

28.08.2009, the date, on which, the sale has been scheduled

and a further sum of Rs. Two lakhs on or before 25.09.2009.

The balance amount shall be paid by way of ‘five’ equal

W.P.(C)No. 24625 OF 2009

2

monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or

before 25.10.2009, to be followed by the remaining

installments to be effected on or before the 25th of the

succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further proceedings

pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made

clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in

satisfying the requirements, as above, the Bank will be at

liberty to proceed with further steps from the stage where it

stands now, for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum.

This will not be a bar to the petitioner to pursue the steps for

such other benefits/concessions sought for vide Ext. P5, which

may be considered and decided by the Bank in accordance with

law.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk