Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55795
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
SHINY – Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL SALE OFFICER PUTHUR SCB GROUP – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27042 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS, SMT.E.U.DHANYA, SMT.CHINJU P. JOYIES, SHRI.VINAYAK MANOHARAN P.
For the Respondents: SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN (SR.), SRI.S.MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN, SMT.SILPA N.P (GP)
Court allows installment repayment of a loan under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act after initial default.
Headnote:The case concerns the provisions of the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, wherein the petitioner defaulted on a loan, prompting auction proceedings. The Court found merit in allowing the petitioner to repay the overdue amount in installments. The main issues revolved around the repayment plan, with the Court determining a structured 18-instalment repayment scheme while staying coercive actions against the petitioner. In conclusion, the Court ordered the respondent bank to accept the overdue amount in installments, maintaining that further chaotic proceedings are suspended.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan agreement and defaults. (Para 1) |
| 2. financial difficulties allowing payment in installments. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. permission for structured repayment. (Para 4) |
| 4. court orders payment plan. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, along with her husband, has availed credit facilities from the respondent bank. On default being committed, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala State Co- operative Societies Act, 1969, leading to the issuance of Ext.P1 auction notice and Ext.P2 sale proclamation. This prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not repay the loan on account of financial stringency . It is submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the overdue amount in some instalments.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank also. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would submit that, the overdue amount, as on today, is Rs.15,63,036/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs sixty three thousand and thirty six only) and the respondent bank has no objection in granting some reasonable instalments to the petitioners to clear the overdue amount. Learned counsel also submits that, the entire amount ordered to be paid as a condition in the interim order dated 23.07.2025 had not been paid by the petitioner and only a sum of Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs thirty five thousand only) has been remitted by the petitioner. However, the learned Counsel submits that the petitioner can be permitted to pay the balance overdue amount in installments and to regularise the loan account.
4. Having regard to the 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 overdue amount in 18 instalments.
5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the overdue amount of Rs.15,63,036/- along with accrued interest, costs and bank charges from the petitioners in the following manner:
(i) The overdue amount of Rs.15,63,036/- shall be repaid in 18 equated monthly instalments along with any accrued interest/costs and charges;
(ii) The first instalment shall be paid on or before
30.12.2025 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 30th day of the succeeding months;
(iii) Petitioner shall continue to pay the regular EMI’s/instalments along with the instalments directed above;
(iv) In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law;
(v) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts as above, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
