Kerala High Court
Jose M.V vs Canara Bank on 7 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
RP NO. 900 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2019 IN WP(C)
23472/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 JOSE M.V.
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O VARGHESE, MUTTAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, PARAPURAM
P.O.
KANJOOR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683575
2 SINO JOSE
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O JOSE M.V., MUTTAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, ARAPURAM
P.O. KANJOOR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
, PIN - 683575
3 HONEY SINO
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O SINO JOSE, MUTTAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, PARAPURAM
P.O. KANJOOR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 683575
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
T.B.SIVAPRASAD
C.A.ANUPAMAN
DILU JOSEPH
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 CANARA BANK
REGISTERED OFFICE NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE
560 001, BRANCH OFFICE SREEMOOLANAGARAM,
VADAKKUMCHERY BUILDING, KAKADY ROAD,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 683580
2 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,CANARA BANK
SREEMOOLANAGARAM, VADAKKUMCHERY BUILDING,
R.P.No. 900 of 2022
2
KAKADY ROAD, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, ERNAKULAM , PIN
- 683580
BY ADV PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P.No. 900 of 2022
3
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
R.P.No. 900 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of October,2022
ORDER
This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this
Court dated 03.09.2019, has been filed not because there is
any error in it, but since they have not been able to pay off
the amounts in the loan account as directed therein.
2. Smt. Manju E.R., learned counsel for the
petitioners, explained that her clients are going through
extreme financial crisis and that the only manner in which
they can pay off the loan liability is by selling the secured
asset. She proposed that, therefore, they be given at least a
year's time to do so.
3. However, in opposition, Sri. Pauly Mathew Muricken
- learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank,
submitted that the total outstanding in the loan amount, as
on 15.09.2022, is Rs.18,59,147/-; and that the Bank can, at
the best, grant the petitioners time till the end of March, 2023
to pay it off in full. He added that the petitioners can also
approach the Bank for a "One Time Settlement", which
R.P.No. 900 of 2022
certainly will be considered with the empathy that it deserves.
4. I must say that the afore suggestion of Sri.Pauly
Mathew Muricken is the best that the petitioners can seek in
the given circumstances.
In the afore scenario, I allow this Review Petition,
modifying the judgment dated 03.09.2019 in WP(C) No.23472
of 2019, to the extent of granting liberty to the petitioners to
pay off the entire loan outstanding, along with all applicable
charges and interests, either under a "One Time Settlement" -
which they are at the liberty to seek from the Bank , if they
are so interested; or otherwise, not later than 28.03.2023.
In all other aspects, the judgment will stand unaltered.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
lsn
R.P.No. 900 of 2022
APPENDIX OF RP 900/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-
09-2019 IN W.P(C)NO.23472 OF 2019
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN
