Devayani vs General Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 17120 Ker

Kerala High Court

Devayani vs General Manager on 20 June, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 11328 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1     DEVAYANI, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O SANKARAN,
          KEEROTH HOUSE, CHELANNUR.P.O.,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673616

    2     RINEESH K, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O SURENDRAN,
          KEEROTH HOUSE, CHELANNUR.P.O.,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673616

    3     REESHMA K, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O SURENDRAN,
          KEEROTH HOUSE, CHELANNUR.P.O., KOZHIKODE
          DISTRICT., PIN - 673616

          BY ADVS.
          ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
          ARUNKUMAR P.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     GENERAL MANAGER, THE CALICUT TOWN SERVICE
          CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD., KALLAI ROAD.P.O.,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673524

    2     ARBITRATOR/SALE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
          REGISTRAR GENERAL TOWN SCB GROUP, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN,
          PUTHIYARA.PO., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673003


          SRI. P.A.HARISH - SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 11328/24
                                     2

                          JUDGMENT

Even though the petitioners seek that the 1 st respondent-Bank

be directed to offer them 24 equal monthly installments to pay off

the loan liability availed of by them, when this matter was called

today, Sri.P.A.Harish - learned Standing Counsel for the Bank,

submitted that his client is not amenable to the afore request

because the property has already been sold and purchased by his

client - the same having been confirmed since. He added that the

only indulgence that can be shown by his client to the petitioners

is to allow them to pay off the liability, which comes to an

amount of Rs.36,76,662/- as on 20.06.2024, along with all

applicable charges and interest, as also the re-conveyance charges,

provided they do so not later than 30.07.2024. He prayed this

Court not to grant any further indulgence to the petitioners.

2. It is needless to say, in matters like this, this Court

cannot act beyond the concessions offered by the Bank. Of course,

the petitioners can refuse the afore suggestion and can invoke

other remedies as may be available to them, but that is their

choice.

3. Sri.Zubair Pulikkool - learned counsel for the

petitioners, submitted that since the Bank is taking the afore

stand, his clients have been left without any other option and

therefore, prayed that they be allowed to accede to the same or to

invoke other remedies as are available to them.

In the afore circumstances and recording the afore

submissions of Sri.P.A.Harish, I allow this Writ Petition,

consequently allowing the petitioners to pay off the afore amount,

along with all applicable charges, interest and expenses, not later

than 30.07.2024.

If this is done, the Bank will reconvey the property to the

petitioners; for which, the expenses will also be met by them as

per rules.

I also leave liberty to the petitioners to invoke any other

remedy that may be available to them, in case they don't want to

take the afore liberty; for which purpose, all rival contentions are

left open.

Sd/-

RR                                                DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                            JUDGE



                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11328/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN ARC NO.
                    450/2020 WITH DECREE ON THE FILE OF 2ND
                    RESPONDENT DATED 22.01.2021.
Exhibit P2          TRUE COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION ISSUED

BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2024.