Johnson P vs The Authorized Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 29985 Ker

Kerala High Court

Johnson P vs The Authorized Officer on 22 October, 2024

                                                     2024:KER:79328
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
                                 &
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
    TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946
                        WA NO. 1671 OF 2024
        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.35842 OF
                   2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

           JOHNSON P
           AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. PRAKASHAN, PAIMELIL PURAYIDOM, VRA
           NAGAR 30 NEAR DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001

           BY ADVS.
           BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
           BASIL MATHEW
           THOMAS C.ABRAHAM


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
           UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION BRANCH,
           DEVAPRIYA COMPLEX, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION,
           KOLLAM, PIN - 691009

    2      UNION BANK OF INDIA
           REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION
           BRANCH, DEVAPRIA COMPLEX, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION,
           KOLLAM, PIN - 691009

           BY ADVS.
           ASP.KURUP
           SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
           C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
           SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
           B.SREEDEVI(K/169/2024)
           ATHIRA VIJAYAN(K/199/2024)


THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2024:KER:79328
W.A.No.1671 of 2024
                                    2


                              JUDGMENT

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

We have heard Sri.Biju C. Abraham, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri. Sadchith P. Kurup, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Bank.

2. In the writ petition what the Appellant/Petitioner seeks is a writ of mandamus to the Respondent-Bank to extend the instalments. The learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the matter observing that earlier indulgence was shown, yet the Petitioner did not comply.

3. It is for the Appellant and the Respondent-Bank to work out the matter as it is a matter of commercial prudence for the Bank to extend the instalments.

4. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

Nitin Jamdar Chief Justice

Sd/-

S. Manu Judge vpv