Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
JAINY JENSON – Appellant
Versus
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court’s directive on compliance with payment schedules effectively allows extension for debt repayment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. tribunal ordered to conduct a prompt hearing to resolve pending cases. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2025 The petitioners were directed to remit Rs.10,38,357/- , Rs.11,23,314/- and Rs.11,23,314/- respectively on or before 30.08.2025 and the same amount on or before 30.09.2025, the 2nd instalment by the Debt Recovery Tribunal- I, Ernakulam. Since the petitioners could not remit the first instalment, they moved an application for extension of time, which was allowed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and granted time till 17.10.2025 to pay both instalments. Thereafter, another application Ext.P4, was filed for extension of time for compliance of the order, wherein the prayer is to extend the time to pay the balance amount by one month from 01.09.2025. The said application is now rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
2. A counter affidavits are filed by the respondents in all the writ petitions, where a detailed tabular column showing the amounts due and the amounts ought to have been remitted as per the interim order is spec
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
