Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22544
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J
JOSEPH KURIAN – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR – Respondent
WP(C)/15313/2018
SRI.BABY THOMAS, SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN, SRI.TOM JOSE, SMT.GEETHA JOB(OZHUKAYIL), SRI.JOBIN JOLLY, SRI.P.N.MOHANAN, SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC, DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY, SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC, SRI.AJEESH EMMANUEL, SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
The decision clarified that salary deductions for loan repayments must adhere to statutory limits, ensuring protection against excessive recoveries.
Headnote:
Recovery - Writ Petition - Article 226, Code of Civil Procedure 60 - The court addressed salary deductions in the context of loan repayments, emphasizing adherence to statutory limits on deductions as per the Code, thus shaping its decision in favor of regulated repayment terms.
Fact of the Case:
The principal of a school, who had taken loans from co-operative societies, sought a writ of mandamus for limiting salary deductions related to loan recovery, arguing for compliance with Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed salary deductions of ₹20,000 monthly for loan repayment, establishing that deductions would be made only towards the specified loan, protecting the petitioner from excessive recovery by other creditors.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s salary deductions for loan repayments were compliant with statutory provisions, particularly concerning limits on such deductions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the deductions from the petitioner’s salary should only account for amounts agreed upon in the repayment settlement, as dictated by Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision: The court directed salary deductions of ₹20,000 monthly for loan repayments as agreed, allowing recovery proceedings by other creditors to continue independently.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the Principal of St.George Higher Secondary School, Kattappana, who availed loans from respondents 3 to 7, which are Co-operative Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2, i.e, the Regional Deputy Director, Higher Secondary Education and the Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Kattappana, respectively, to limit recovery from his salary, as provided under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, on the basis of the requisition of respondents 3 to 7 and permit him to draw the balance portion of his salary.
2. On 15.5.2018, when this Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to respondents 5 and 6. The learned Government Pleader took notice before admission for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel/counsel took notice for respondents 3, 4 and 7. Thereafter, on 24.5.2018, this Court issued notice by speed post to respondents 4 and 7.
3. On 5.6.2018, the learned Standing Counsel for the third W.P.(C) No.15313/18 ::2::
respondent Bank submitted that an amount of `66,604/- is due from the petitioner to the said respondent. This Court, by order dated 5.6.2018, directed the first respondent to permit the petitioner to pay off the amount outstanding to the third respondent in six equal monthly instalments. It was made clear that only the said monthly instalments shall be deducted from the petitioner's salary towards the amount due to the third respondent from the month of July, 2018 onwards.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the respective Standing Counsel/counsel appearing for other respondents.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in this Writ Petition, the petitioner has not sought for any relief against respondents 5, 6 and 7. The said submission is recorded.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the fourth respondent Bank would submit that, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the petitioner has agreed to pay off the total amount outstanding in respect of the loan transaction with the fourth respondent, amounting to `6,31,000/-, together with future interest from 15.12.2017, in monthly installments of `20,000/-, by way of deduction from his salary.
7. Having considered the submission made by the learned W.P.(C) No.15313/18 ::3::
counsel on both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing respondents 1 and 2 to deduct ₹20,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner and remit the same with the fourth respondent Society, till discharge of the entire liability of the petitioner amounting to `6,31,000/-
together with future interest from 15.12.2017.
It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of any recovery proceedings being initiated by respondents 5, 6 and 7 against the petitioner. Since the interim order granted by this Court on 5.6.2018 is confined to repayment of the overdues in respect of the loan availed from the third respondent Bank, this judgment will also not stand in the way of the third respondent, taking appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of amount, if any, outstanding towards regular monthly instalments.
