Gopakumar V vs The Branch Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 9480 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.6181 OF 2021(W)


PETITIONER:

               GOPAKUMAR V
               AGED 50 YEARS
               S/O VIKRAMAN, S.R.VILAS, TC 2/119, PALOTTUVILA,
               MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 071.

               BY ADV. SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE BRANCH MANAGER
               PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH,
               AMBUJAVILASOM ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
               001.

      2        AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
               PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH,
               AMBUJAVILASOM ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
               001.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW
               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.DENU JOSEPH
               R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.BIBIN BABU

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6181 OF 2021(W)

                                   2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He argued that the

petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

by the end of this month and he is willing to pay the balance overdue

amount in instalment. He argued that the petitioner was regular in

payment of instalments of the term loan as well as the overdraft

facility. But, the petitioner could not remit the entire amount because

of Covid-19 pandemic. It is argued that the petitioner has filed WP(C)

No.13025/2019 and this Court, on earlier occasion had granted 10

instalments. Because of financial constraint caused by Covid-19, the

direction given in the said judgment could not be complied. However

the petitioner is willing to repay the overdue amount in 20

instalments.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

petition by drawing my attention to the judgment at Ext.P1 and

submitting that in terms of this judgment, only Rs.4,00,000/- was paid

by the petitioner, so far as overdraft facility is concerned and nothing

is paid so far as term loan is concerned. It is argued by the

respondents that the respondents are not willing to grant instalments

to the petitioner.

WP(C).No.6181 OF 2021(W)

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the materials placed before me. The petitioner has availed

overdraft facility so also, the term loan from the respondent No.1

financial institution. The petitioner could not repay the financial

assistance availed by him and therefore, she approached this Court by

filing writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 13025/2019 which was

decided on 28/05/2019. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment needs

reproduction and the same reads thus:

"In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.33,23,986/-, which represents the total outstanding amounts in the overdraft facility and the overdues in the Term Loan, along with all applicable charges and interest, in 10 equal monthly instalments starting from 28/06/2019. The petitioner will also pay the regular EMIs, falling due hereinafter, in the Term Loan in addition to the above, without fail."

4. It is thus clear that this Court had granted 10 instalments

to the petitioner for clearing the entire outstanding amount. This Court

has warned the petitioner that directions in the judgment are

peremptory in nature and no further request for extension of the said

judgment will be permitted. It was made clear that if the petitioner

fails to comply the directions in the judgment, he will lose the benefit

of the judgment.

5. It is reported by the learned counsel for the respondents

that despite the judgment at Ext.P1, the petitioner had only repaid an WP(C).No.6181 OF 2021(W)

amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, so far as the overdraft facility is concerned

and nothing was repaid so far as the term loan is concerned. Thus, the

petitioner who was granted equitable relief vide judgment at Ext.P1

has failed to avail that relief. He cannot therefore, seek the same relief

again by filing the instant petition. The directions for grant of

instalments were passed on 28/05/2019. Ten equated monthly

instalments starting from 28/06/2019 were granted. Covid-19

pandemic started in March, 2020. However, the petitioner had failed to

adhere to the directions given in the judgment at Ext.P1 even prior to

outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.

Grant of instalments for regularization of loan is sole prerogative

of the financial institution. This Court cannot direct the financial

institution to grant instalments for regularization of the loan. For the

reasons stated in the foregoing paragraph, the petition fails and the

same is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                             A.M.BADAR
Nsd
//true copy//                                    JUDGE
PA to Judge
 WP(C).No.6181 OF 2021(W)




                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO
                     13025/2019 DATED 28.5.2019

EXHIBIT P2           TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIXED NOTICE DATED
                     NIL