RAMANKUTTY v. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of, and the following
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of, and the following directions are issued: (i) The petitioner shall approach the respondents with a request to inform him of the details of outstanding amount together with interest and other charges due from him in respect of…
Judgment
SRI M SASINDRAN, SC FOR THAMARASSERY PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 160/2024 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner states that he availed an agricultural loan in the year 2019, for a sum of Rs.3,63,218/- from the 2nd respondent bank on the strength of security of his immovable property situated in Kinaloor village and having an extent of 14.5 cents. It is submitted that the pandemic severely impacted the financial stability of the petitioner, and he could not pay the installments regularly. For failing to adhere to the schedule, he has been served with Ext.P1 sale notice calling upon him to pay the outstanding amount within 15 days or to risk the sale of the immovable property. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 and for further direction to grant the petitioner a breathing time to clear off the entire outstanding that has fallen due.
Sri. M. Sasindran, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submits that, as of now, the total outstanding is approximately Rs.3,73,787/-. He submitted that he has instructions to submit that the bank has no reservations in providing an opportunity to settle the outstanding amount. Nonetheless, he asserted that the option to pay in installments should be strictly limited to not more than ten installments. W.P.(C) No. 160/2024 3
I have heard both sides and have gone through the records.
From the submissions made by both parties, it appears that the total outstanding due from the petitioner is about Rs.3.73 lakhs. As the respondents have not objected to granting an installment facility to the petitioner to clear off the dues, I am of the view that necessary directions can be issued to enable the petitioner to clear the amounts due to the respondents.
Operative part
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of, and the following directions are issued:
(i) The petitioner shall approach the respondents with a request to inform him of the details of outstanding amount together with interest and other charges due from him in respect of the loan account. If such a request is made within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the respondents shall forthwith issue a statement in writing detailing the amount due to clear the outstanding amount.
(ii) On receipt of such a statement, the petitioner shall pay the outstanding amount shown therein in twelve (12) equal monthly installments commencing from 1.3.2024 and continue to pay the same every W.P.(C) No. 160/2024 4 succeeding month.
(iii) If the amounts are diligently paid in terms of the directions above, coercive proceedings initiated against him by the respondents for the realization of the amount shall be kept in abeyance.
(iv) It is made clear that if the petitioner commits default in respect of two successive installments, he lose the benefit of this judgment, and the concerned respondents will be free to continue with the recovery proceedings against him from the stage at which he presently stands and recover the entire amount along with interest and other charges.
(v) It is further made clear that no application for an extension of time will be entertained. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP W.P.(C) No. 160/2024 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 160/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 03.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.