Sunilkumar vs The Authorised Officer(Chief ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 626 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                RP.No.990 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 12653/2019

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12653/2019(F) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONERS:

      1        SUNILKUMAR
               AGED 49 YEARS
               S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, SOPANAM, KOKKAYIL JUNCTION,
               KADAKKAVUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

      2        SHEELA RANI,
               W/O.SUNILKUMAR, SOPANAM, KADAKKAVUR.

               BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE AUTHORISED OFFICER(CHIEF MANAGER),
               SBI, RASMI CM, LAZARR SQUARE, NEAR KULANGARA
               SREEKRISHNA TEMPLE, KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN-695582.

      2        BRANCH MANAGER,
               SBI, VAKKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-696308.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.990 OF 2020 IN WP(C).12653/2019

                                    2

                               ORDER

This petition for review of the judgment

dated 28/05/2019 has been filed not because

there is any error apparent on it, but because

the petitioners have not been pay off the

amounts as per the directions therein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners,

Shri.R.Anilkumar, submitted that even though

his clients have not paid off the entire amount

as ordered in the judgment, they have remitted

substantial sums and that they are willing to

pay off the balance overdue in the loan

account, so as to have it regularized, within a

period of three weeks from today. He prayed

that the Bank be directed to give his clients

this latitude.

3. Shri.R.S.Kalkura, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank,

affirmed that the petitioners have made some

payments, but submitted that the directions in RP.No.990 OF 2020 IN WP(C).12653/2019

the judgment have not been complied with fully.

He, however, added that if the petitioners are

willing to regularize the loan account, by

paying the balance overdues as on today with

all applicable charges and interest, he will

not stand in the way of this Court granting

them such benefit, taking note of the present

COVID-19 pandemic disruptions.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

review petition and modify the judgment to the

limited extent of permitting the petitioners to

pay off the balance overdue in the loan

account, along with all applicable charges and

interest, so as to have it regularized, on or

before 29/01/2021.

In all other respects, the judgment will

remain unaltered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/7.1.2021 RP.No.990 OF 2020 IN WP(C).12653/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SHOWING DEPOSITS UP TO 28.02.2020.

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.SARB/STL/628/2020 DATED 30.07.2020. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL


MC

                     (TRUE COPY)                PA TO JUDGE