Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51386
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J
RAMACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 8551/2016
A debtor's failure to comply with an Ombudsman order within the specified timeframe negates subsequent claims for relief.
Headnote:
Loan - Certiorari - Article 226 List - The court upheld the Ombudsman's order directing repayment of the loan amount and established the obligation to comply with stipulated timelines for relief under cooperative society regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an Ombudsman order requiring repayment of a loan by a specified deadline, claiming an inability to pay and requesting time to remit the outstanding amount.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief despite failing to comply with the Ombudsman's order to remit the loan within the prescribed time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to timelines set by the Ombudsman, establishing that failure to do so negates entitlement to relief even if financial difficulties are claimed.
Final Decision: The petitioner must pay ₹3,16,235/- in ten installments, with recovery proceedings held in abeyance pending compliance.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner's father availed a loan for ₹1,50,000/- from the
4th respondent Bank. The petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the Ombudsman for Co-operative Societies dated 13.01.2016, whereby, he has been directed to remit the principal amount outstanding in respect of the loan transaction in question before 10.03.2016 and for other consequential reliefs.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Bank.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed the benefit granted by the Ombudsman for Co-operative Societies vide Ext.P6 order dated 13.01.2016. The time limit prescribed in Ext.P6 was till 10.03.2016. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court on 04.03.2016. The petitioner, having failed to avail the benefit granted by the Ombudsman in Ext.P6 order, within the time limit stipulated therein, is not legally entitled for closure of the loan account in question by remittance of the principal amount outstanding. The validity of 'Aswas-2015' as per Ext.P7 circular was only up to 30.03.2015. Therefore, the petitioner has to pay off the total amount outstanding in respect of the loan account in question, if he intends to save his property from recovery proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner shall remit the total amount outstanding in monthly installments, for which he requires a breathing time.
5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent Bank would submit that the total amount outstanding as on 04.11.2017 comes to ₹3,16,235/-.
Having considered the rival submissions, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
i) The petitioner shall pay off the entire amount outstanding in respect of the loan transaction in question, i.e., ₹3,16,235/-, together with future interest from 04.01.2017, in ten monthly installments. The first installment of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) shall be paid on or before 01.02.2018 and the balance amount shall be paid in nine equal monthly installments payable on or before the 1st day of the succeeding months.
ii) If the petitioner is remitting the aforesaid installments in time, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 award shall be kept in abeyance, so as to enable the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in installments, as directed above.
Iii) In case of default committed by the petitioner in remitting any one of the aforesaid installments, it will be open to the 4th respondent Bank to proceed with recovery proceedings, in accordance with law.
