IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 9319 of 2010(L) 1. P.V.THAMBY, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE, ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (L&R), ... Respondent 2. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., 3. DEBTS RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY 4. P.V.KUNJAPPAN, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE, 5. P.V.CHUMMAR, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE, For Petitioner :SRI.E.D.GEORGE For Respondent :SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Dated :08/04/2010 O R D E R P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 9319 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT
The petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent Bank.
But, because of the default, the Bank proceeded with further
steps for recovering the due amount.
2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank
submits on instructions that the matter has become final by
virtue of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.
No.871/2009 as borne by Ext.P5, whereby it has been held as
“In the facts and circumstances of the case
we are satisfied that as a last chance the
appellant/petitioner can be granted a further time
of six weeks from today to pay off the entire
outstanding balance as indicated in the statement
filed by the Bank on July 8,2009.”
The learned counsel further submits that after suffering the
above judgment, the petitioner did not choose to honour the
commitment and on the other hand, he filed a petition before the
Bank (Ext.P6) and some cursory payments were effected,
whereas the balance is still to be cleared in tune with the
WPC NO. 9319/2010 -2-
mandate given by the Division Bench as per Ext.P5 and hence
that no interference is called for.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
after Ext.P5 judgment the petitioner has effected some
payments. The petitioner approached this Court for issuance of
a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider
Ext.P6 sympathetically and pass appropriate orders. This Court
finds that absolutely no interference is warranted as the
petitioner has not chosen to avail the benefit given in Ext.P5
judgment. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is