Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43910
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J
A UNNIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GENERAL – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 16913/2017
Acceptance of settlement terms by a petitioner limits their ability to contest the terms legally.
Headnote:
Financial - Writ Petition - Article 226 - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the one time settlement order, interpreting that the petitioner's acceptance of the settlement terms precluded interference.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order directing payment under a settlement scheme following a loan default, which he accepted during proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s acceptance of the settlement amount in his representation prevents him from contesting the order.
Issues: Whether the Ext.P9 order directing payment under the one time settlement scheme warranted judicial interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that accepting the terms of the settlement bar any challenge to the imposed conditions of that settlement.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who had availed a term loan of ₹2,24,550/-
from the 1st respondent Bank on 07.06.1995, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 20.02.2017 of the 3rd respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of ₹1,50,000/- under the Navakeraleeyam One Time Settlement Scheme by 31.03.2017.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents 1 and 2.
3. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P9 order dated 20.02.2017, of the 3rd respondent.
4. The fact that the petitioner had availed a term loan from the 1st respondent Bank in the year 1995 and has defaulted repayment of the amount due, is not in dispute. The petitioner made Ext.P7 representation before the 3rd respondent claiming the benefit of one time settlement scheme to clear the loan amount outstanding. By Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C).No.39814 of 2016, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the said representation with notice to the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.
4. Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, the 3rd respondent conducted a personal hearing and after hearing the petitioner and also respondents 1 and 2, issued Ext.P9 order, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of ₹1,50,000/- under the one time settlement scheme, without payment of interest or other charges, on or before 31.03.2017.
5. A reading of Ext.P9 order would show that, the said order is one issued based on the submission made by the petitioner that he is prepared to pay off the aforesaid amount of ₹1,50,000/- by
31.03.2017.
6. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P9 order before this Court in a writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India .
In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
