Lissy Thankachan vs The Kerala Gramin Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 25835 Ker

Kerala High Court

Lissy Thankachan vs The Kerala Gramin Bank on 30 September, 2024

W.A.No.1328 of 2024                                2024:KER:72545
                                  1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR

                                  &

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU

 MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946

                       WA NO. 1328 OF 2024

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.7.2024 IN WP(C) NO.24396

                 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       LISSY THANKACHAN
            AGED 63 YEARS, W/O THANKACHAN G, LIJO VILLA,
            PARAPATTY, THATTAYIL PO, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA
            DISTRICT, PIN - 691525

    2       ROSHNI MARY ROY
            AGED 35 YEARS, D/O ROY ABRAHAM, CHAKKITTAYIL
            VELIYIL, MANNAR- HARIPAD ROAD, MELPADOM P O ,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN, PIN - 689627


            BY ADVS.
            M.T.SURESHKUMAR
            MANJUSHA K
            SREELAKSHMI SABU




RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK
            ADOOR BRANCH, NADACKAVILANGADY, OPPOSITE GOV.
            HOSPITAL, ADOOR P.O PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER / MANAGER, PIN
            - 691523
 W.A.No.1328 of 2024                                          2024:KER:72545
                                    2

    2       THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
            THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE AT
            PLAKKILETHU CGM BUILDING, CHURULICODE JUNCTION,
            PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689668

    3       THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
            THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KGB TOWERS,
            AK ROAD, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676505


            BY ADV RASSAL JANARDHANAN A


     THIS     WRIT    APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
30.09.2024,     THE    COURT   ON   THE     SAME      DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.1328 of 2024                                    2024:KER:72545
                                   3

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of September, 2024

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

The Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 8 July 2024 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C)No.24396 of 2024.

2. The Appellants are the borrowers of the Respondent Bank. From the orders that are annexed to record of proceedings, it can be seen that the Appellants have taken out various proceedings against the Respondent Bank, such as two writ petitions, including the present one.

3. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 1 April 2024 in W.P.(C)No.10269 of 2020 had disposed of the writ petition by permitting the Petitioners/Appellants to remit the overdue amount @ ₹1,65,458/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only) in eight consecutive equal monthly instalments and if the Petitioners committed single default, the Respondent Bank was given liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings, which the Petitioners had challenged before the learned Single Judge.

4. The Appellants/Petitioners filed another writ petition i.e., the present writ petition bearing No.24396 of 2024, making the grievance regarding the interest quantified for the moratorium period and also for regularisation of the loan amount. The learned Single Judge noted the earlier order and also the submission of the Respondent Bank that the W.A.No.1328 of 2024 2024:KER:72545

Appellants did not pay the instalments as per the earlier order and declined to interfere.

5. We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Inspite of the fact that the matter is in the realm of contract, by way of indulgence a facility was given to the Appellants to pay the balance amount by way of instalments, which the Appellants did not adhere to. No further indulgence in writ jurisdiction can be shown in a matter which, according to us, lies in the realm of contract.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

Nitin Jamdar Chief Justice

Sd/-

S. Manu Judge vpv