Kerala High Court
Pathumma Kunju vs The Special Sale Officer on 23 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2741 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 PATHUMMA KUNJU,
AGED 78 YEARS
W/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, NAZAR MANZIL, KOYIVILA,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691590
2 SHOUKATH KUNJU
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, NAZAR MANZIL, KOYIVILA,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691590
BY ADV P.SAREENA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER
KULASEKHARAPURAM SC BANK(GROUP),C/O ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL) KARUNAGAPALLY,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691590
2 THEVALAKARA FARMERS' SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.
4047, THEVALAKARA P O, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 690524
BY ADVS.
Mohan Lal B
P.S.PREETHA(K/883/1998)
ASWIN V. NAIR(K/1019/2017)
JAYAPRABHA ARJUN(K/001757/2023)
BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN(K/003114/2023)
AJAY S. KOSHY(K/003202/2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2741 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
The limited plea of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent - Bank
be directed to consider settlement of their loan account for a lesser
figure, after granting them all eligible benefits.
2. Sri.B.Mohanlal - learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd
respondent - Bank, responded to the afore request of the petitioners, as
made by their learned counsel - Smt.Sareena George, saying that if the
petitioners make a proper application, the same will be considered; but
added that he is not sure if any One Time Settlement Scheme is still in
force.
3. Smt.Sareena George - learned counsel for the petitioners
accepted the afore suggestion; however, praying that the 2 nd respondent
- Bank be directed to grant at least six months time for payment under
the settlement.
4. I am afraid that I cannot accede to the afore request of the
petitioners that the Bank be directed to consider the application to be
made by them for settlement in a particular manner. But, I see no
reason why the Bank will not consider it with the empathy that it
deserves, particularly taking into account the stated financial position of
the petitioners.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and leave
liberty to the petitioners to approach the 2 nd respondent - Bank with an
appropriate application for One Time Settlement; and if this is done
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, the same will be considered, after affording them necessary
opportunity of being heard, thus culminating in an appropriate order
and necessary action.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore is done and as long as
the petitioners abide by the conditions to be insisted by the 2 nd
respondent - Bank, all further recovery action based on the impugned
notices will stand deferred.
However, should the petitioners refuse to invoke the liberty as
reserved above, or to pay as per the instructions to be given by the Bank
subsequently, their right to recover the balance amounts through the
process of law following due procedure is fully reserved.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/31.5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2741/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.
268/22 DATED 14-112022 RECEIVED BY 1ST
PETITIONER DEMANDING RS 1290894
Exhibit P2 . A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.
266/22 DATED 14-112022 RECEIVED BY 2ND
PETITIONER DEMANDING RS 1290867
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.
267/22 DATED 14-112022 RECEIVED BY HIDAYATH
BEEVI WHO IS WIFE OF 2ND T PETITIONER
DEMANDING RS 1290867
Exhibit P4 . A TRUE COPY OF DIRECTION ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 31-3-2023
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26-12-23 ISSUED
BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26-12-23 ISSUED
BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER
