High Court Kerala High Court

Shaija Nazar vs The Thrissur District Co-Op. Bank … on 12 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Shaija Nazar vs The Thrissur District Co-Op. Bank … on 12 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 359 of 2010(T)


1. SHAIJA NAZAR, AGED 42,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD.,

3. THE SALE OFFICER,

4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.

5. THE STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :12/01/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No. 359 OF 2010
              .........................................................................
                     Dated this the 12th January, 2010

                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings

pursued by the Bank invoking the machinery under the relevant

provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules .

The case projected in the Writ Petition is that the entire property

of the petitioner need not be sold and the petitioner is planning

to wipe out the whole liability, if some breathing time is given.

2. The learned Counsel for the Bank submits, on

instruction, that the loan was extended to the petitioner in the

year 2005 and because of the chronic default, necessary

proceedings were filed before the Assistant Registrar, leading

to the ‘Award’ passed on 20.06.2006. Since the notice issued for

realization of the amount did not evoke any positive response,

Execution Petition was filed in the year 2008 and further

proceedings are going on, which in turn are sought to be

challenged by filing the Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for

the respondents also submits that the liability will cross more

than Rs. Six lakhs as on date and that the request of the

W.P.(C) No. 359 OF 2010

2

petitioner to grant some more time to clear the liability might

not be considered, unless and until the petitioner effects

substantial payment towards the existing liability.

3. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed

to deposit a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs on or before the 31st of this

month and the balance amount with interest and cost shall be

cleared by way of ‘4’ equal monthly installments, the first of

which shall be effected on or before 25.02.2010, to be followed

by similar installments to be effected on or before the 25th of the

succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further coercive

proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. If any default is

committed by the petitioner in satisfying the amounts as above,

the Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for

realization of the entire amount in a lump sum.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk