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) 52248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
ASHOK P NARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42959 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.BIJU, SRI.K.R.SAJITH, SRI.P.P.PRAVEEN, SMT.ANGEL BABU
For the Respondents: SMT. K. AMMINI KUTTY (SC), SMT. RESMI THOMAS (GP)

A surety can seek installment repayment of a loan after default by the principal borrower, subject to terms established by the court.

Headnote:The petitioner is the surety for loans availed by the brother and seeks to repay the total outstanding of Rs.31,23,002/- in installments after the bank initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The court allows 18 installments with conditions regarding default and additional options under a One Time Settlement Scheme. The verdict directs the bank to accept payments without coercive action while clarifying obligations under the settlement scheme.

Table of Content
1. petitioner acts as surety for loans. (Para 1)
2. petitioner seeks installment repayment. (Para 2 , 3)
3. the court agrees to installment payment. (Para 4)
4. conditions set for repayment and coercive actions. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the surety for two loans availed by the 3rd respondent, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner. On default being committed by the 3rd respondent, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act,1969, and awards were obtained, determining the amounts payable by the 3rd respondent. The awards were put to execution and property of the petitioner, which is mortgaged, has been proceeded against, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only seeking the liberty of repaying the entire amount in some instalments.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would submit that the bank has no objection in some reasonable instalments being permitted to the petitioner to clear the entire liability. It is submitted that the outstanding amount, as on 19.11.2025, is Rs.31,23,002/- (Rupees Thirty one lakhs twenty three thousand and two only). It is also submitted that, at present, there is a One Time Settlement Scheme in force, namely നവ കേ(cid:4)രളീയം കുടിശ്ശി(cid:4) നിവാരണ പദ്ധതി, 2025-26 and if the petitioner wishes to avail the benefits of the said Scheme, the petitioner may make a suitable application before the Competent Authority.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made as recorded above, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to repay the outstanding amount in eighteen instalments.

5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire outstanding amount of Rs.31,23,002/- (Rupees Thirty one lakhs twenty three thousand and two only) along with accrued interest, costs and bank charges from the petitioner in the following manner:

(i) The outstanding amount of Rs.31,23,002/- (Rupees Thirty one lakhs twenty three thousand and two only) shall be repaid in eighteen equated monthly instalments along with any accrued interest, costs and charges;

(ii) The first instalment shall be paid on or before 22.12.2025 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 22nd day of the succeeding months;

(iii) In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with the law;

(iv) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts as above, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

The directions contained in this judgment will not prevent the petitioner from seeking the benefits of നവ കേ(cid:4)രളീയം കുടിശ്ശി(cid:4) നിവാരണ പദ്ധതി, 2025-26. However, the filing of any application for the benefits of that Scheme will not absolve the petitioner of the liability to pay the amounts in terms of the directions contained in this judgment. If on the application of the petitioner, any benefit is granted to the petitioner, petitioner will be governed by the terms of the One Time Settlement scheme and not by the directions contained in this judgment.

The 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