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) 53573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
AYISHA – Appellant
Versus
VILVATTOM SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33468 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.A.N.SATHISH KUMAR, SMT.SUJATHA E.R.
For the Respondents: SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN, SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.VISHAK K.V., SMT.ANUSREE P.A., SRI.V.K.SUNIL

Compliance with interim orders in loan recovery is essential for the fitness of receiving further relief from the court.

Headnote:The petitioner sought permission to clear her loan liability in installments after the respondent bank initiated recovery proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The court emphasized its limited jurisdiction in loan recovery matters and noted the petitioner's failure to comply with interim orders, ultimately dismissing the writ petition due to lack of bona fides. The court framed the key issue around the petitioner's compliance with the interim order and ruled that non-compliance dis-entitles further relief. The writ petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's failure to remit amounts leads to dismissal. (Para 1)
2. court maintains limited jurisdiction in recovery matters. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed credit facilities from the respondent bank. On default being committed, the respondent bank initiated recovery proceedings and obtained an award in proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969, determining the liability of the petitioner. On the award being put to execution, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. The only relief sought for by the petitioner is that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the liability in instalments. When this matter came up for consideration on 11.09.2025, this Court passed the following interim order:

“Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents.

The petitioner shall deposit Rs.2 lakhs with the bank within two months from today.

Further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 shall stand deferred by two months on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.2 lakhs as directed above.”

When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that no amount has been remitted by the petitioner towards the loan liability pursuant to the interim order dated 11.09.2025.

2. This Court exercises very limited jurisdiction in matters relating to the recovery of loans by banks and financial institutions, and where the petitioner has failed to show bona fides and considering that the prayer of the petitioner is only for a direction to the respondent bank to permit her to clear the liability in some instalments, the failure of the petitioner to comply with the condition imposed in the interim order dis-entitles her to further relief from this Court.

Writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.

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