K.Vijayan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29383 of 2009(P)


1. K.VIJAYAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ARBITRATOR CUM SALE

3. THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN,SC,KASARGOD DIST.CO.BAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :25/11/2009

 O R D E R
                                S. Siri Jagan, J.
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                        W. P (C) No. 29383 of 2009
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                 Dated this, the 25th November, 2009.

                               J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due

from him to the 3rd respondent -bank. In respect of the same, the

arbitrator to whom the dispute was referred under Section 69 of the

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, passed Ext. P2 award in ARC

No.103/2004 on 28-4-2004. The petitioner did not pay the award

amount. The bank initiated coercive recovery proceedings. It is

under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ

petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, quashing Exts.P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 and P8;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider
Ext. P award taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court;

(iii) declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest at the
rate of 16% and penal interest at the rate of 3% as awarded
by the 2nd respondent;

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent bank to
permit the petitioner to avail the one time settlement
scheme.”

2. On 16-10-2009, counsel for the 3rd respondent-bank

submitted that the sale, which was under challenge, was adjourned

and the petitioner’s case has been included in the list of cases to be

considered in the Adalath to be conducted from 2-11-2009 to 7-11-

2009. Accordingly, I directed the petitioner to participate in the

Adalath. On 17-1-2009, I passed the following order:

“It is submitted before me that in the Adalat parties
appeared and the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of

W.P.C. No. 29383/09 -: 2 :-

Rs. 1,58,742/- before 30-11-2009. The counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner may be given either time to pay that
amount or installment facility. This is opposed by the counsel for
the Bank. The counsel for the Bank would submit that this amount
has been offered on condition that the petitioner would pay the
same in a lump sum before 30-11-09 and that no further
installment facility or time can be granted.”

It is now submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay the said

amount of Rs. 1,58,742/- before 30-11-2009.

In view of the said agreement, it is not necessary to consider

this writ petition on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed.

S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/