KOCHUTHERSYA Vs. SPECIAL SALES OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for a loan of Rs.2,50,000/ from the second respondent bank by submitting an application dated 18.7.2001. THE loan was applied for the purpose of her son's business as stated in the application, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R2(a) along with counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. THE Managing Committee of the second respondent bank considered the application on 25.8.2001 and resolved to sanction a loan of Rs.1,95,000/- to be repaid within a period of five years. THE said amount was disbursed.

(2.) THE petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan. THE bank thereupon filed A.R.C.No.954 of 2004 wherein the Arbitrator passed Ext.R2(b) award on 22.11.2004 permitting the bank to recover from the petitioner and her assets, a sum of Rs.1,75,025/- together with future interest at 19% per annum from the date of plaint namely 31-2-2004. Even thereafter the petitioner did not repay the debt. THE bank thereupon took steps to execute the award by attaching and bringing to sale an item of immovable property mortgaged by the petitioner as security for the loan. Ext.P1 sale proclamation was thereupon issued on 23.4.2010 proposing to sell the security by public auction at 11 a.m. on 26.5.2010. THE petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P2 representation dated 5.5.2010 before the first respondent Special Sale Officer requesting him to postpone the sale on the ground that the amount claimed is exorbitant and under the terms of Ext.P3 circular dated 30.11.2006 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the petitioner is not liable to pay the sum of Rs.3,13,404/- demanded in Ext.P1 sale proclamation. THE instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 21.5.2010 challenging Ext.P1 and seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) THE petitioner is a widow aged 64 years. She availed the loan for the business purpose of her son. THE property brought to sale is 11 cents of land belonging to the petitioner. THE loan application submitted by the petitioner would show that a foundation for putting up a building was in existence in the land when it was mortgaged. In such circumstances, as the land which is brought to sale is land where the petitioner proposes to put up a building, I am of the opinion that she should be permitted to repay the debt in instalments. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: