High Court Kerala High Court

Leelamma Abraham vs Federal Bank .Td on 16 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Leelamma Abraham vs Federal Bank .Td on 16 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29816 of 2008(Y)


1. LEELAMMA ABRAHAM, 66 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. FEDERAL BANK .TD, REGD.OFFICE ALUVA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. A.ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM, PANNIKKOTT

3. LIGI ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM,

4. MAYJI ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE K.A.ABRAHAM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.JOSEPH

                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :16/10/2008

 O R D E R
        THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

          W.P.(C).No.29816 of 2008-Y

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008.

                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner has a dairy farm. She had availed

a mortgage loan. She also availed a loan for the

purpose of dairy farm. It appears that her dairy

farm used to produce large quantities of milk. I

say so because, the petitioner, going by the

records of the High Court, had filed WP(C).

26318/2003 seeking a direction to a primary milk

co-operative society to collect the entire milk

produced in her dairy farm because the society

does not receive more than 100 litres.

The case in hand is a claim by the petitioner

that she is entitled to the benefit of the debt

relief scheme brought in by the Central

Government to support the agricultural sector.

Even according to the learned counsel for the

WP(C)29816/08 -: 2 :-

bank, one loan is availed for dairy farm, though

the other is a mortgage loan. On the totality of

the facts and circumstances, I deem it

appropriate that the first respondent considers

Ext.P5. However, that will be on condition that

the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.2 lakhs

within three weeks from now. It is further

directed that the Debt Relief Commission will

adjourn any interim application filed by the

writ petitioner to set aside ex parte order

passed against her in O.A.33/2003, awaiting the

decision of the bank on Ext.P5. All other

contentions are left open. The writ petition is

ordered accordingly.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/161008