Kerala High Court
Sarathchandran vs Poothakkulam Service ... on 26 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9583 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SARATHCHANDRAN, AGED 62, S/O.GOPALAN,
ANANDAVILASAM, KOTTAYKERAM, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM.
BY ADV S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 POOTHAKKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.2944
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, POOTHAKKULAM, KOLLAM
(DT). 691 302
2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (SPECIAL SALE OFFICER), OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), KOLLAM.691 001.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
R2 BY SR.GP SRI.BIMAL K. NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 9583 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner conceding
that he has suffered an Arbitration Award, at the instance of the
first respondent -Bank, for an amount of Rs.34 lakhs. He says that
he is willing to pay off the entire amount due to the Bank, but that
on account of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions for the last more
than 1½ years, he has been unable to garner resources to do so. He
submits that he, therefore, approached the Bank for a One Time
Settlement and that, though they agreed to reduce the amount to
Rs.34.19 lakhs, he could not pay it for the same reason. He thus
prays that the Bank be directed to offer him a moratorium until
March 2022, within which time, he will be in a position to sell his
property, with the consent of the Bank and pay off the entire loan
liability.
2. I have heard Sri.Nidheesh.S., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel for the first
respondent Bank and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, learned Senior Government
Pleader, appearing for the second respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted
that even though the petitioner has been offering to settle the loan
liability, he has failed to do so in spite of the fact that his client had
given him a very attractive One Time Settlement proposal, after
giving up more than Rs.9 lakhs. He then submitted that if the
petitioner is willing to pay off the entire loan liability before March
2022, the Bank will not take any coercive action against him until
that time and added that if the petitioner approaches the Bank for
any reduction, as may be available to him at the time of payment,
his client will consider the same as per law.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the respondent Bank
as afore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client
will accept the offer and reiteratingly affirmed that his endeavour is
to pay off the entire liability in the loan account on or before the end
of March 2022.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this writ
petition and direct the respondent Bank not to initiate or pursue any
coercive action against the petitioner until 31.03.2022, within which
time, he will be at liberty to approach the Bank and settle the
liability, after seeking eligible reductions in the loan account, which
the Bank may consider and grant as per law.
Needless to say, if the petitioner does not settle the loan
account on or before 31.03.2022, the Bank will be at full liberty to
initiate necessary action for recovery of the balance amounts, after
following due procedure.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9583/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.11.2019
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONETIME SETTLEMENT ORDER
DATED 27.2.2021
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 3.4.2021.
