Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47567
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
SANTHOSH – Appellant
Versus
KUNNUKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.827 – Respondent
WP(C)/32232/2016
SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH, SRI.N.J.PRINCE, SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.S, SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN, SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN
Courts may impose conditions on relief from financial obligations, emphasizing enforceability and compliance with prior orders.
Headnote:
Loan - Co-operative Arbitration - Recovery Proceedings - The summary highlights the court's interpretation of the provisions governing recovery of dues by cooperative banks and the impact of interim orders on the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners defaulted on a loan from a co-operative bank, leading to recovery proceedings and an arbitration award against them. After failing to comply with interim court orders, the petitioners sought further relief from the court.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted further relief from recovery proceedings despite their previous defaults and non-compliance with court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while it could grant relief in exceptional circumstances, repeated defaults would undermine the court's authority and the enforcement of financial obligations.
Final Decision: Relief granted under strict condition to repay loan by specified date, else recovery proceedings may continue.
JUDGMENT
As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by a common judgment.
2. The petitioners, who had availed a loan from the 1st respondent Co- operative Bank, defaulted in repayment of the same. As a consequence of the same, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings for recovery through an ARC filed before the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The said proceedings culminated in an Award, by which the petitioners were found liable to repay the defaulted amount of Rs.3,03,605/-, together with accrued interest and other charges. For realisation of the same, the 1st respondent filed an Execution Application before the Arbitration Court. It is at that time that the petitioners approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.32232/2016, where, at the time of admission, an interim order was passed protecting the petitioners from recovery steps. The said interim order was later modified on 02.04.2018 and extended on condition that the petitioners pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from the said date. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not comply with the directions in the said interim order. The non-compliance of the petitioners with the said interim direction was not reported before this Court and hence the writ petition continued to be pending before this Court, although the stay was not operational.
3. In the meanwhile, the recovery proceedings continued against the petitioner consequent to the default occasioned by her in not paying the amount directed to be paid by the interim order referred above. The said proceedings culminated in a sale notice proposing the sale of properties belonging to the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner preferred W.P. (C).No.590/2020, in which notice was issued to the respondent on 10.01.2020 and later, an interim stay granted on 14.01.2020 till the next date of posting.
4. When the matter was taken up today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the total amount outstanding from the petitioner as on 25.11.2019 is Rs.4,85,456/-. When I queried the learned counsel for the petitioner on the time the petitioner would require for repaying the said amount to the Bank, more so under circumstances where she had already defaulted on earlier directions issued from this Court in W.P. (C).No.32232/2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner assures that the amount of Rs.4,85,456/-, together with accrued interest from 25.11.2019 till the date of payment, will be paid to the respondent Bank on or before 29.02.2020. The limited request of the learned counsel for the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent Bank to consider extension of any relief to the petitioner based on Ext.P6 scheme, if the petitioner is found satisfying the conditions for getting the benefits under such scheme.
5. Taking note of the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the plea of financial hardship urged on their behalf, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:
i. The petitioners shall discharge the liability of Rs.4,85,456/- together with accrued interest from 25.11.2019 till the date of payment, to the respondent, subject to her getting the benefit of any concession under Ext.P6 scheme, on or before 29.02.2020 to the respondent Bank.
ii. If the petitioners default in the aforesaid condition, they will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondents will be free to initiate recovery proceedings from the stage at which they currently stand.
iii. It is further made clear that, inasmuch as it is in exceptional cases that this Court would grant the relief aforementioned, no further petition for modification/extension of time will be entertained.
iv. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of the judgment before the respondents for further action.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE okb //True copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32232/2016 PETITIONER'S/
