Kerala High Court
P.T.Jaison vs Assistant Registrar/Special ... on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.12956 OF 2020(T)
PETITIONER:
P.T.JAISON, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, PULICKAL, PAZHOOR KARA,
PIRAVOM VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 664.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV
RESPONDENTS:
1 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SPECIAL SALE OFFICER
STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.(FORMER ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682
030.
2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
CO-BANK TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-
695 601.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP BIMAL K NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).12958/2020(T), WP(C).13026/2020(C),
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).12956, 12958 and 13026 of 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner herein challenges the proposed sale of the mortgaged
property in relation to the liability arising from a loan transaction.
Petitioner had availed an overdraft facility from the 2 nd respondent Bank,
which became overdue. Bank filed ARC 236/2012 claiming the amount
with future interest. Award was passed. Execution was initiated and
mortgaged property was brought for sale. On payment of some amount,
the sale was deferred. Thereafter, Ext.P2 notice was issued directing the
petitioner to remit about Rs.3 Crore, failing which, property would be
sold. At that stage, petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to
consider the request of the petitioner to settle the accounts in the
Navakeraleeyam-2020 scheme.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that, in spite of the lapse of the scheme, the benefit
may be extended to the petitioner and he is ready to settle it by adopting
the one time scheme.
3. A detailed statement was filed by the bank, contending that,
there was no bonafides in the offer made by the petitioner. It was stated
that, when the mortgaged property was brought for sale, in 2015,
petitioner filed W.P(C).No.5355 of 2015. Bank was directed to consider
W.P(C).12956, 12958 and 13026 of 2020
the request for giving a hearing to the petitioner regarding his offer.
Though he offered to settle the loan before 30.09.2015, he did not pay the
amount. When the property was put up for sale in January 2018, he filed
W.P(C).No.41991 of 2017. When the matter was taken up for hearing,
WP(C) was withdrawn. Hence, it was contended that the petitioner has
been filing frivolous Writ Petitions to delay and protract execution
proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently
opposed the request contending that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter
and he has been trying to evade the payment of award amount. It was
argued that, petitioner has a tendency to approach the Court and to stall
the sale and further proceedings at the fag end of the proceedings and
when the property is about to be sold. Inspite of these submissions, this
Court directed the second respondent to ascertain whether there is still
possibility of extending the one time scheme to the petitioner as a last
chance. Petitioner in the present W.P(C) and two other similarly situated
writ petitions W.P(C).Nos.12958 of 2020 and 13026 of 2020 were directed
to appear before the authority to work out any possible method to avoid,
as a last chance, the sale of the mortgaged property.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion conducted, it was reported
by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the validity of the
one time scheme has been extended till March 2021. It was submitted
that the petitioner in W.P(C).12956 of 2020 was not eligible for the
W.P(C).12956, 12958 and 13026 of 2020
benefit, in the light of parameters fixed in the one time scheme. It was
submitted that, in the case of other two petitioners, bank was ready to
extent the scheme, subject to those petitioners showing their bonafide.
This submission of the learned counsel was recorded on 18.01.2021 and
posted to this day for the response of the learned counsel for the
petitioners. Today, when the matters were taken up, learned counsel for
the petitioners in all cases submitted that, since a new scheme has been
introduced, they propose to avail the benefit of that and they propose to
withdraw the Writ Petitions.
6. The withdrawal of the Writ Petition was vehemently opposed
by the learned counsel for the second respondent as well as learned
Senior Government Pleader contending that this was the repetition of
ealrier proceedings. It was submitted by the learned Senior Government
Pleader that, instructions had already been given to the Sale Officer to
proceed with the sale, since it was suspected that the sale was being
delayed at the behest of the petitioners. Strict instructions were given to
the Sale Officer to complete the sale proceedings without prolonging the
sale. At that stage, these Writ Petitions were filed.
7. Now, petitioners have come up with the prayer to withdraw, to
take benefit of a new scheme of one time settlement. The earlier round
of litigations show that, whenever property is put up for sale, the
petitioners would move the Court with a request to settle it by availing
one time settlement. The Writ Petitions were filed in June 2020. It
W.P(C).12956, 12958 and 13026 of 2020
emerges that the Sale Officer did not proceed with the sale justifiably,
due to the pendency of the Writ Petitions. I find that the only attempt of
petitioners was to delay the sale. I find absolutely no bonafides in the
request set up by the petitioners to avail OTS. Evidently, no amount has
been paid during the last few years. The conduct of the petitioner in
using judicial process for delaying execution proceedings is deprecated.
It is clarified that, withdrawal is not with permission to move fresh
proceedings to take benefit of new one time scheme. Writ Petition is
permitted to be withdrawn at the risk of the petitioner.
Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Sbna JUDGE
W.P(C).12956, 12958 and 13026 of 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12956/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2015
IN WPC NO.5355 OF 2015.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.05.2020 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OFTHE STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
ONE TIME SETTLEMENT/KUDISSIKHA NIVARANAM
SCHEME, NAVA KERALEEYAM-2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.06.2020 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18.03.2020 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 RUE COPY OF THE REPLY AND REQUEST DATED
25.05.2020 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
ONE TIME SETTLEMENT/KUDISSIKHA NIVARANAM
SCHEME, NAVA KERALEEYAM-2020
