Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36762
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
Subramanian C – Appellant
Versus
Malankara Multi-State Co-operative Credit Society – Respondent
W.P (C) No.10370/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jazil Dev Ferdinanto, Kripa Prasad
For the Respondents: V.K. Dinesh Kumar
Non-compliance with a conditional interim order granted by the court in a writ petition demonstrates a lack of bona fides, rendering the petitioner ineligible for discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:This petition relates to the repayment of a vehicle loan under the Multi-State Co-operative Credit Societies Act, 2002. The petitioner sought an installment plan to clear arrears, citing medical exigencies. The court had initially granted an interim stay on recovery proceedings conditional upon payment of Rs. 2,50,000. The central issue was whether the petitioner remained entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite failing to comply with the court's interim directions. The court reasoned that non-compliance with the conditional interim order demonstrates a lack of bona fides. The writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for loan recovery dispute and the request for installment relief. (Para 1) |
| 2. consequences of failure to comply with conditional interim orders in discretionary writ proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner availed a car loan from the 1st respondent society. According to the petitioner, he was regularly paying instalments. However, according to the petitioner, during the year 2024 the petitioner was diagnosed with cardiovascular disease, as a result of which payments to the loan account became irregular. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings before the Deputy Registrar (under the Multi-State Co-operative Credit Societies Act, 2002 ), Thiruvananthapuram and also initiated proceedings before the Subordinate Judge's Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for taking over possession of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner utilizing the loan. Substantially the only relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent society to permit the petitioner to repay the loan liability in 15 instalments.
2. When this writ petition came up for admission before this court on 16-03-2026 this court passed the following order:-
“Issue notice by speed post to the first respondent. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent.
2. There will be an interim stay of further proceedings for a period of one month on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) within one month from today.
3. It is made clear that if the above payment is not made, the respondents will be free to proceed further in accordance with law.
Post on 21.05.2026.”
3. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the petitioner has not paid any amount in compliance of the interim order dated 16-03-2026. The failure of the petitioner to comply with the condition imposed in the interim order dated 16-03-2026 indicates that there is no bona fides in the relief sought for by the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
