Shine vs District Co-Operative Bank ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3110 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.924 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONERS:

      1        SHINE
               AGED 45 YEARS
               S/O.ANANDAN, VALAKADAVIL HOUSE, ETTUMANADESOM,
               OORAKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-
               680652.

      2        MELLY,
               AGED 51 YEARS
               S/O.ANANDAN, VALAKADAVIL HOUSE, ETTUMANADESOM,
               OORAKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-
               680652.

      3        UDAYASREE,
               AGED 46 YEARS
               W/O.MELLY, VALAKADAVIL HOUSE, ETTUMANADESOM, OORAKAM
               VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680652.

               BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

RESPONDENTS:

      1        DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK CHERPU BRANCH
               (NOW KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD),
               CHERPUDESOM, CHERPU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680561.

      2        KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
               REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, SAHAKARANA
               SATHABDHIMANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM,
               THIRUVAMBADI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680022.



               SRI P C SASIDHARAN -RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.924 OF 2021(M)

                                       2

                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of January 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it will not

be possible for the petitioners to repay the overdue amount in five

equal monthly installments apart from regular payment of EMIs.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that demand notice was

issued way back in the year 2019 and contention of the petitioners

that because of Covid-19, they could not repay the amount of loan is

not correct.

3. Upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the petitioners will be filing a representation before the

respondents for regularization of their loan account and the petition is

disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide

the representations if any, filed by the petitioners in that regard.

In this fact situation, the petition is disposed of with the liberty to

the petitioners to make an appropriate representation for

regularization of loan account and if such representation is made by

the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, the

respondents shall consider and decide the same according to law as WP(C).No.924 OF 2021(M)

early as possible and in any case within a period of two weeks from

the date of receipt of such representation.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.924 OF 2021(M)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER U/S 13(2) IF SARFAESI ACT BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER U/S 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2021.