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) 6309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
GEORGE THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33302 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SINU.G.NATH
For the Respondents: SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL, SRI.S.SREEDEV, SRI.RONY JOSE, SHRI.LEO LUKOSE, SRI.KAROL MATHEWS, SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY, SHRI.DERICK MATHAI, SAIJI, SHRI.KARAN SCARIA ABRAHAM

The court allowed the petitioner to repay a defaulted loan in installments, emphasizing debtor protection under cooperative society regulations.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: Under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the petitioner defaulted on credit facilities from the second respondent bank. Facts of the Case: The petitioner sought relief to repay a defaulted loan amount of Rs.15,23,577/- in installments.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed a repayment schedule of eighteen installments with specified deadlines.

Issues: The court considered whether the petitioner should be allowed to repay the loan in installments.

Ratio Decidendi: Emphasizing the need for a repayment opportunity, the court stated that enabling repayment was a practical consideration in debt recovery.

Result: The petitioner shall repay the outstanding amount in 18 installments; all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

Table of Content
1. petitioner defaulted on loan and seeks repayment opportunity. (Para 1 , 2)
2. bank acknowledges default but allows repayment. (Para 3)
3. court approves structured repayment plan. (Para 4 , 5)

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner availed credit facilities from the second respondent bank.

On default being committed proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition.

2. During the course of hearing, petitioner has confined the relief to an opportunity for repaying the outstanding amount in installments.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that the petitioner committed default in repayment and the outstanding amount is Rs.15,23,577/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Seven only) as on today. It is further submitted that though proceedings for recovery have been initiated, as a matter of indulgence, the respondent bank is willing to accept repayment of the outstanding amount in limited installments.

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 outstanding amount in eighteen(18) installments.

5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire outstanding amount of Rs.15,23,577/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Seven only) along with any accrued interest, cost and bank charges from the petitioner in the following manner:

(i) The petitioner shall pay the outstanding amount of Rs.15,23,577/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Seven only) together with any accrued interest, cost and bank charges in eighteen(18) equated monthly installments;

(ii) The first installment shall be paid on or before 27.02.2026.

The subsequent installments shall be paid on or before the last working day of the succeeding months;

(iii) In the event of default of any one installment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with the law;

(iv) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

The disposal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the bank for any One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme, and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the competent authority of the respondent bank and a decision shall be taken on the eligibility of the petitioner to have his loan accounts settled in terms of the provisions contained in the OTS scheme. Ordered accordingly. If the petitioner is granted OTS, he shall be governed by the terms of OTS and not by the direction issued in this judgment. If the petitioner fails to abide by the terms of OTS that may be granted to him at the discretion of the competent authority, the Bank is entitled to continue with the recovery proceedings.

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