IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
HASEENA E.H – Appellant
Versus
THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER THE PONNANI CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 45001 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to loan recovery proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's reflection on compliance and jurisdiction. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act , 1984, for the recovery of amounts due under the credit facilities availed by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent Bank.
2.When the matter came up for consideration on 29.11.2025, this court passed the following order;
“Admit.
Issue notice by speed post to the 2nd respondent. Notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with for the time being. Further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P1 and P2 shall remain suspended for a period of two months subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) towards the loan liability within a period of two weeks from today.”
3.Thereafter, when this matter came for consideration on 19.01.2026, it was reported that no amount had been paid by the petitioner in terms of the interim order dated 29.11.2025. Therefore on 19.01.2026, this Court passed the following order;
“At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as last chance, ten days for payment of the amount directed to be paid as a condition for the interim order.”
4.Even today, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent Bank is that no amount has been remitted by the petitioner.
Essentially, the only relief sought by the petitioner is a direction to the 2nd respondent Bank to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in instalments.
5.Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has failed to comply with the conditions imposed in the interim order dated 29.11.2025, despite an extension of time, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails, and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.