Vijayan P.B vs The South Indian Bank Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 351 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 6621 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:

            VIJAYAN P.B.,
            AGED 65 YEARS
            PANDARATHIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT SUMUNIKETH, EAST
            NADA, GURUVAYUR P.O., THRISUSR-680 101.

            BY ADV S.MUMTAZ



RESPONDENT/S:

            THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
            REPRESENTED BNY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL
            OFFICE, THRISSUR.


OTHER PRESENT:

            ADV.GEORGE VARGHESE




     THIS     WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   13.01.2022,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.6621/2020

                                  ..2..

               BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
     -----------------------------------------
               WP.(C) No. 6621 of 2020
      ----------------------------------------
       Dated this the 13th day of January, 2022


                               JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the respondent bank points

out that as per the interim order dated

05.03.2020, the petitioner was bound to

deposit an amount of Rs.18,50,000/- (Rupees

eighteen lakh fifty thousand only) on or

before 04.04.2020 being the overdue amount in

the loan account and that except for a paltry

sum of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty

five thousand only) deposited within the time

stipulated, the petitioner failed to comply

with the interim order. It is further

submitted that altogether as on date, an

amount of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees five lakh

fifty thousand only) had been paid by the

petitioner consequent to the interim order of WPC No.6621/2020

..3..

this Court and further that an amount of

Rs.1,16,99,636/- (Rupees one crore sixteen

lakh ninety nine thousand six hundred and

thirty six only) remains due from the

petitioner. In view of the above, respondent

bank is not willing to regularise the loan

account of the petitioner.

2. Having regard to the afore submission, I am of

the view that the writ petition lacks merit

and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE Bka/13.01.2022 WPC No.6621/2020

..4..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6621/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 16.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 28.02.2020.

EXHIBIT P2(a) TRUE TRANSLATION OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 28.02.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 29.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE TRANSLATION OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 29.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.