Prajesh V.P vs Shaji
2021 Latest Caselaw 6711 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942

          Con.Case(C).No.281 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 7856/2019

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2019 IN WP(C) 7856/2019(F) OF
                       HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONERS:

      1        PRAJESH V.P.,
               AGED 38 YEARS,
               S/O. PRABHAKARAN, VETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
               VADAKKANIRUPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

      2        RAJESH V.P.,
               AGED 41 YEARS,
               S/O. PRABHAKARAN, VETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
               VADAKKANIRUPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

      3        PRABHAKARAN V.N.,
               AGED 75 YEARS,
               S/O.NARAYANAN, VETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
               VADAKKANIRUPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

      4        RAJAMMA PRABHAKARAN,
               AGED 73 YEARS,
               W/O. PRABHAKARAN, VETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
               VADAKKANIRUPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

               BY ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

               SHAJI
               AGED 48 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
               PETITIONER) MANAGER,
               KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NJEEZHOOR
               BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. 686 001


               BY ADV.
               SR.GP-SRI.GEORGE MATHEW VADAKKEL

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.281 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 7856/2019

                                           2

                                    JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the petitioners

say that the 1st petitioner's wife is

suffering from end stage Cancer and that the

family has now been driven to penury on

account of her treatment. He thus prays that

the Bank may be directed to write off the

balance in the loan account, which is,

according to him, approximately Rs.2 lakhs.

2. The learned counsel for the

respondent, however, submitted that "writing

off" of the loan account can be considered,

only if the petitioners make a proper

request for the same; however, adding that

in normal circumstances, the Bank can only

waive the accrued interest and not the

principal.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I

close this contempt case; leaving liberty to

the petitioners to approach the Bank with an Con.Case(C).No.281 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 7856/2019

appropriate request; and if this is done

within a period of two weeks from today, the

competent Authority of the Bank will

consider the same in terms of law and

intimate them the resultant order without

any further delay.

Needless to say, until such time as the

afore exercise is completed and the

resultant order communicated to the

petitioners, all action against them shall

stand deferred.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/26.2.2021 Con.Case(C).No.281 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 7856/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.7856/2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 16.12.2020 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT BANK