SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
ANILA STANLY – Appellant
Versus
THE CANARA BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36841 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.CIBI THOMAS, SHRI.G.PRATHAP CHANDRA
For the Respondents: SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SHRI.RAJA KANNAN, GP, SMT.RIYAL DEVASSY

Court mandates repayment terms for loan settlement to defer recovery actions, ensuring compliance.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against the bank concerning the closure and recovery of a loan account. The court noted a proposal for settlement of the amount was made. The court ordered the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- in installments, emphasizing recovery actions upon default. The petitioner was required to adhere to payment terms to defer further recovery proceedings.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for mandamus and loan closure. (Para 1)
2. court order regarding payment settlement and recovery deferral. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1st Respondent no to produce (sic) with the recovery of any amount in respect of loan account No.

0728651005209;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the 1st respondent for not taking steps to drop the proceedings in respect of loan account No. 0728651005209;

iii) declare that the loan account No. 0728651005209 stands closed in the light of Ext. P5 and all further proceedings for recovery of any amount in respect of the loan is illegal;

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing 2nd respondent to meet 60% of the liability in respect of loan account No. 0728651005209;

v) to permit the petitioner to produce translations of the vernacular documents as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court;

vi) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;”

2. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 28.07.2025 the 1st respondent bank has come up with a proposal that the entire issue could be settled on payment of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to remit the amount, but some time may be granted for payment.

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows:

Petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and fifty thousand only) in three equal monthly instalments starting from 01.12.2025 and continue to pay the instalments on the first day of the succeeding months. It is made clear that in case of default in payment of a single instalment, the 1st respondent bank will be free to proceed with for recovery of the amount. If the instalments are remitted without default, all further proceedings for recovery of the amount shall be deferred.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top