High Court Kerala High Court

Jacob Varghese vs Irinjalakuda Co-Operative … on 18 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Jacob Varghese vs Irinjalakuda Co-Operative … on 18 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8148 of 2009(K)


1. JACOB VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MARY, W/O.VARGHESE,

                        Vs



1. IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE PRESIDENT,

4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),

5. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :18/03/2009

 O R D E R
               THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
                   ...........................................
                 WP(C).NO.          8148         OF 2009
                  ............................................
        DATED THIS THE            18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners availed a loan from the first respondent

sometime in 2004. Following the statutory proceedings, there is a

confirmed sale in favour of the bank. By that process, the

relationship between the petitioner and first respondent has

terminated. The mortgaged property has been purchased by the

bank and sale confirmed. Relying on Circular 1 of 2009, the

petitioners sought for relief in terms of that circular. The terms of

that circular relate only to transactions which are ripe and where

recovery proceedings are not completed. But in the case in hand,

by the sale in favour of the bank, which has been confirmed, the

transaction no more survives for application of Circular 1 of 2009.

Yet, the bank has issued Ext.P12 stating that it is prepared to

extend certain facilities.

2. Learned counsel for the bank states that all that has

been done is that the bank is prepared to extend the petitioners,

certain benefits and reconvey the property. This, he states, could

WP(C) 8148/2009 2

be had only if the entire amounts due as on the date of sale with

future interest at 12% therein is paid to the bank.

3. I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in

the stand taken by the first respondent. Having assured myself

that Circular 1 of 2009 will not apply in cases of closed

transactions or in relation to transactions where the recovery has

been completed, I do not find it necessary for the writ court to

stand on the contents of Ext.P12, that too, of a Co-operative

Society and compel it to enforce Ext.P12 in the manner in which

petitioners desire to have it. In the aforesaid circumstances,

refusing all other reliefs, this writ petition is ordered directing

that if the petitioners pay the entire amounts for which the sale

was conducted, and 12% interest thereon from the date of sale,

till the date of payment, the bank will reconvey the property as

decided by it, at the expenses of the petitioners. It is also

recorded that the petitioners have to make the payment before

31.3.2009 for getting the aforesaid benefit.

Writ petition ordered accordingly.

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
lgk/20/3