Kerala High Court
P.V.Mohandas vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 7475 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
P.V.MOHANDAS
S/O.VELUKKUTTY, PULICHERI VALAPPIL HOUSE,,
LOVEDINE CATERERS, L.F.C.ROAD, KALOOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SMT.P.A.PRIYA
SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE TAHSILDAR
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.
3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.)
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.
5 THE CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY THE
SENIOR MANAGER AND THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF
PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.
6 SUNIL KUMAR K.S. AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. K.A.SUBRAMANIAN, KALLAYIL HOUSE, CRA 72,,
THIYADIL LANE, CHANGAMPUZHA ROAD, EDAPPALLY,,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
W.P.(C).No.7475 & 8151 of 2010
2
7 RAJU JOSEPH
JOSEPH STORES, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR,, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
8 VYAPARA VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITY, ELAMAKKARA
UNIT, VYAPARA BHAVAN, SHOPPING OCMPLEX,
POTTAKUZHY JUNCTION, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS
SECRETARY
9 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KALOOR BRANCH,
KALOOR, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
BY ADVS.SRI.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.N.T.BIJU
SRI.B.JAYAPARAKASH
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
SRI.RENJU JOHN
SRI.S.RAMU
SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).8151/2010, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.7475 & 8151 of 2010
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 8151 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
RAIJU JOSEPH
S/O.JOSEPH, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM.
3 THE SPECICAL TAHSILDAR
REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE,, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-11
4 VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM.
5 CANARA BANK LTD, PALARIVATTOM BRANCH
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
6 SUNILKUMAR.K.S., KALLAYIL HOUSE
CRA 72,THIYADIL LANE, CHANGAPUZHA ROAD,
KALOOR,, ERNAKULAM.
7 P.V.MOHANDAS, LOVEDINE CATERES
PERANDOOR ROAD.
BY ADV SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR
SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKAN, SC
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7475/2010,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.7475 & 8151 of 2010
4
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.7475 & 8151 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I
am disposing these cases by a common judgment.
2. The 6th respondent in both these writ petitions
availed a loan from the 5th respondent Canara bank in which
the petitioners in these writ petitions were the guarantors.
There was default on the part of the 6 th respondent in repaying
the loan amount. Consequently the Bank initiated revenue
recovery proceedings and they also approached the civil court
with a suit. These two writ petitions were filed by the
guarantors with an allegation that the Bank is not proceeding
against the principal debtor and they are proceeding against
the petitioners who are only guarantors. The petitioners also
contended that without quantifying the amount due and even
before the civil court decide the matter, the Bank took steps
for revenue recovery and hence the revenue recovery is
unsustainable.
W.P.(C).No.7475 & 8151 of 2010
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the
Standing Counsel who appeared for the Canara Bank in these
two writ petitions. I also heard the Government Pleader.
4. It is now admitted by both sides that the suit is
decreed and an execution petition is pending before the
execution court. These two writ petitions were admitted long
back and there is a status quo order also in both the cases.
Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the counsel
for the petitioners and the respondents reiterated their
contentions.
5. It is an admitted fact that the 6th respondent availed
a loan and the petitioners were the guarantors. In such
circumstances liability of the petitioners as guarantors is same
as that of a principal debtor. Whether the Bank has to initiate
revenue recovery proceedings against the principal debtor
alone or the guarantors is the discretion of the Bank in which
this Court cannot pass any orders. But, if any One Time
Settlement is available to settle the dues, the petitioners can
approach the Bank. Of course if the amount is recovered from
the petitioners, the petitioners have got a right to recover the
same from the principal debtor by taking appropriate steps.
W.P.(C).No.7475 & 8151 of 2010
Hence, if there is any One Time Settlement to settle the loan
account, the petitioners can approach the Bank with a
representation and to facilitate the petitioners to approach the
Bank with such representation, the status quo order already
passed can be continued for a short period.
Therefore, these two writ petitions are disposed in the
following manner:
1. The petitioners are free to file a representation
before the 5th respondent for availing One
Time Settlement facility, if any, available to
clear the dues, within three weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. If such a representation is received, the 5 th
respondent Bank will consider the same and
take appropriate steps in accordance to law.
3. The 5th respondent will also hear the principal
debtor and if possible, take appropriate steps
to recover the amount from the principal
debtor itself. Of course I make it clear that it
is the discretion of the Bank.
4. Till final order is passed in the representation
W.P.(C).No.7475 & 8151 of 2010
submitted by the petitioners, status quo as on
today as far as the revenue recovery
proceedings against these petitioners will
continue.
4. I make it clear that if any execution
proceedings based on the decree passed by the
civil court is pending, the Bank is free to
proceed with the execution proceedings,
untramelled by any of the directions or
observations in this judgment.
5. If any amount is recovered from the petitioners
by the 5th respondent Bank, the petitioners are
free to take appropriate legal proceedings
against the 6th respondent, the principal
debtor, in accordance to law.
6. All the contentions of the petitioners in these
writ petitions are left open.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.7475 & 8151 of 2010
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7475/2010
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 827/09 ON THE
FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE BANK LOAN PASS BOOK OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.2.2010
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.2.2010
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION DATED
21.12.2007
ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED
24.01.2008
W.P.(C).No.7475 & 8151 of 2010
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8151/2010
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 827/09 ON THE
FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE R.R.NOTICES DATED
08.02.2010
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER
