SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5638

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SIBI THOMAS JACOB
For the Respondents: SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA, SMT.J.SURYA, SMT.A.B.BEENU

Failure to comply with interim orders negates grounds for discretionary relief under Article 226 against recovery proceedings.

Headnote:The judgment deals with the challenge to proceedings initiated under the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act, 1984, for recovery of loan amounts. The court held that the petitioner failed to comply with interim conditions set forth, thus not establishing grounds for discretionary relief under Article 226. The central question framed was whether the discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised. The court reasoned that failure to comply with payment conditions negated grounds for relief.

Result: The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

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/-

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