Kerala High Court
Jaya Anilkumar vs The Canara Bank on 23 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6056 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 JAYA ANILKUMAR,
AGED 51 YEARS,
W/O ANILKUMAR P.T,
GREEN VIEW KAKEELAKULANGARA,
ALAPUZHA, KERALA-, PIN - 690572
2 ANILKUMAR P.T,
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O THANKAPPAN GREEN VIEW KAKEELAKULANGARA,
ALAPUZHA,
KERALA-, PIN - 690572
BY ADVS.
S.SAJEEB
THASNIMOL T.S.
SHIJI P.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CANARA BANK,
ARM BRANCH,
ERNAKULAM,
2ND FLOOR CANARA BANK BUILDING CHITTOOR ROAD,
ERNAKULAM SOUTH,
KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIN - 682016
2 M/S CORONA SOLAR AND SWITCH GEAR
307 HRJ COMPLEX, MARADU P.O,
KANNADIKADU,
ERNAKULAM,
KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIN - 682304
W.P.(C) No.6056/2024
:2:
3 KIRAN,
AGED 48 YEARS,
307 HRJ COMPLEX,
MARADU P.O, KANNADIKADU,
ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 682304
BY ADV M.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6056/2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court
seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
1st respondent-Bank to declare the said loan as
illegal in itself and to conduct a detailed inquiry
regarding the same.
(ii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. In short, the allegation of the petitioner is that the
petitioners have only availed an amount of ₹65 lakhs and
that is the only amount credited to the accounts of the
petitioners. The remaining amounts were disbursed by the
Bank to the third parties without the knowledge or consent
of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not liable to
pay the amount claimed by the Bank.
3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf
of the 1st respondent-Bank and resisted the writ petition.
The Standing Counsel submitted that as on 31.01.2024, an
amount of ₹5,75,25,620/- is payable by the petitioners. The
loan payments were all made to the petitioners or with the
consent and approval of the petitioners. The attempt of the
petitioners is to stop the recovery proceedings. The writ
petition is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
4. Going through the pleadings and arguments, I
find that the issue raised by the petitioners is relating to the
disbursement of loan amounts for the loan sanctioned to
the petitioners. This issue is a disputed question of fact
which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. O.A No.387 of 2018 filed by the Bank
is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If the
petitioners have any disputes regarding their liability, the
petitioners will have to dispute the claim of the Bank before
the Debts Recovery Tribunal in appropriate proceedings.
With the said observations, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6056/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 15.01.2024 OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER KEPT AS COLLATERAL
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
03.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE LISIE HOSPITL DATED
20.12.2020
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE ASTER MEDICITY HOSPITAL
DATED 16.06.2023
