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) 9703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
MATHEW E.P. – Appellant
Versus
IRITTY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV SHRI.A.SANIL KUMAR
For the Respondents: ADV SHRI.RAMEES P.K., SMT. RESMI THOMAS (GP)

A petitioner must demonstrate bona fides to receive relief under Article 226 concerning financial recovery matters.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent under the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act, 1984, seeking to clear overdue loan amounts in instalments. The court noted that the petitioner failed to comply with interim orders and did not demonstrate bona fides necessary for relief. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner challenges bank recovery of loans. (Para 1)
2. court finds lack of bona fides. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent bank under the provisions of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks Act , 1984, for recovery of amounts due under credit facilities availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent bank. Essentially the only relief sought for in the writ petition is a direction to the respondent bank to permit the petitioner to clear the overdue amounts in the loan accounts in question in instalments. When this matter came up for consideration on 09-05-2025, this Court passed the following order:

“Issue notice before admission to the respondents by speed post.

Post on 16.06.2025.

There will be an interim stay as prayed for, on the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) by 10.06.2025.”

Thereafter, when this matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11-07-2025, this Court was informed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank that the petitioner had not complied with the condition imposed in the interim order dated 09-05-2025. This Court, therefore, permitted the bank to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. Though the petitioner later paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on 18-10-2025, the petitioner has still not complied with the condition imposed in the interim order.

2. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, and considering the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has not demonstrated bona fides entitling him to any relief in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court exercises very limited jurisdiction in matters of recovery of loans by banks and financial institutions, and where bona fides have not been demonstrated, it is not possible for this Court to grant any further relief to the petitioner.

The writ petition fails, and it is accordingly 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