Kora Abraham vs The Regsitrar Of Co-Operative … on 19 February, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21904 of 2005(G)


1. KORA ABRAHAM, S/O.KORA, AGED 65 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGSITRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, MEENACHIL

3. MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE AND AGRICULTURAL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

 Dated :19/02/2007

 O R D E R
                        K.Padmanabhan Nair,J.

                       --------------------------------

                      W.P.(C).No.21904 of 2005-G

                       --------------------------------


              Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2007


                                 JUDGMENT

Deceased writ petitioner was a guarantor to four loans

availed by his children. Since the debtors committed default, the

Bank initiated steps to recover the amount. At that stage, the

petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing Exhibit P1 order, by

which the properties of the petitioner were brought to sale.

2. This Court passed an interim order directing the

petitioner to deposit Rs.55,000/- per month payable on or before

20th of every month. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply

with the condition. During the pendency of this proceedings, the

writ petitioner died and his legal representatives got themselves

impleaded. Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the

Court finds that Exhibit P1 cannot be quashed, a direction may be

issued to the Bank to consider the request of the petitioners for

One Time Settlement. The counsel appearing for the Bank

opposed the prayer on the ground that the writ petitioner was a

wilful defaulter and further he wilfully failed to comply with the

condition imposed by this Court.

W.P.(C).No.21904 of 2005-G

– 2 –

3. It is true that the writ petitioner failed to comply

with the condition. But still, I am inclined to give one more

opportunity to the petitioners to save the property from sale. In

case the petitioners pay an amount of Rupees One Lakh within

one month from today and file an application claiming the

benefit of One Time Settlement, the Bank shall consider the same

and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the

following manner: The prayer to quash Exhibit P1 is refused. In

case the petitioners deposit Rupees One Lakh within one month

from today and makes an application, the Bank shall consider the

request for One Time Settlement and pass appropriate orders

within six weeks from that date. The coercive steps initiated for

sale of the properties shall stand adjourned till the Bank takes a

decision. It is made clear that in case the petitioners fail to

deposit the amount as ordered above, it is open to the Bank to

proceed with the sale of the properties.

K.Padmanabhan Nair

Judge

vku/-