Santhosh Krishna K vs The Chief Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 6631 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6631 Ker
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2021

Kerala High Court

Santhosh Krishna K vs The Chief Manager on 24 February, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

  WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.2917 OF 2021(L)


PETITIONER:

               SANTHOSH KRISHNA K.
               AGED 43 YEARS
               S/O. SUNILKUMAR A., RESIDING AT TC 36/298(12), MNRA-
               26, KALPAKAVILAKOM, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
               695024.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.JATHIN DAS
               SMT.S.SOUMYA ISSAC

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE CHIEF MANAGER,
               STATE BANK OF INDIA, R.A.C.P.C., L.M.S. COMPOUND,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, KERALA.

      2        AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
               STATE BANK OF INDIA, RACPC, LMS COMPOUND,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024, KERALA.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2917 OF 2021(L)

                                   2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of February 2021

Heard both sides.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is ready and willing to pay overdue amount in seven

equated monthly instalments. He submits that he has complied the

earlier judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 17905 of 2019 by

depositing an amount of Rs.2.14 lakhs within few days instead of

paying the same in eight equal monthly instalments. The learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, also, the

petitioner has paid the amount for discharge of his liability. The

learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to paragraphs

6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the Bank opposing the petition

and submits that neither the petitioner complied with the earlier

judgment, nor he is regular in paying the EMIs. According to the

learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner owes an amount of

Rs.7,11,967/- to the respondent Bank inclusive of interest and the

Bank is not now willing to regularize the loan account.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. Averments

in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent

Bank needs reproduction and those reads thus: WP(C).No.2917 OF 2021(L)

6. In compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- each on 15.07.2019 and 02.08.2019. He has thereafter paid a further amount of Rs.14,000/- on 29/10/2019. However, the petitioner had not complied with the directions in the judgment. The bank, de hors the directions in Ext.P2 judgment, took a lenient view and returned the possession of the car, to the petitioner on 02.08.2019 itself, when the petitioner paid Rs.2,00,000/-, as the said amount was paid within a period of one month from the date of judgment. The then Chief Manager has taken the said decision, to return the possession of the car, solely for the reason that the petitioner undertakes to pay the balance amount, as directed in Ext.P2 judgment, within the time as stipulated in the said judgment, together with regular equated monthly instalments. But the petitioner has not made the payment as undertaken by him nor as directed by this Hon'ble Court in Ext.P2 judgment. Apart from the above mentioned payments, petitioner has not made any payments.

7. As per the book of accounts maintained by the Bank, the total amount to be repaid by the petitioner as on 04/02/2021 is Rs.7,11,967/-. The said amount is inclusive of interest calculated upto 10.02.2021. The Bank is not ready and willing to regularize the loan account of the petitioner, since he has not made the payment in compliance with Ext.P2 judgment.

4. It is seen that the petitioner had already availed equitable

relief from this Court vide judgment dated 05/07/2019 in

Writ Petition No. 17905 of 2019, Ext.P2. Counter affidavit filed by the

respondent Bank shows that the said judgment was not complied by WP(C).No.2917 OF 2021(L)

the petitioner by adhering to the terms of payment. The vehicle was

not even returned to the petitioner solely for the reason that the

petitioner undertook to pay the balance amount as directed by the

judgment at Ext.P2. However, according to the learned counsel for the

respondent, neither the judgment was complied, nor the instalments

were paid subsequently.

In this view of the matter, no case for interference is made in the

writ jurisdiction by this Court in the light of failure on the part of the