LAWS(KER)-2013-10-5

LAILA VINCENT Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

Decided On October 01, 2013
Laila Vincent Appellant
V/S
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was before this Court, claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) THE background facts necessary for the adjudication of this case is that the petitioner had availed Rs.10 lakhs in the year 1997 for setting up a splints and veneer's unit which she set up, but later had to be closed down due to the deteriorating market conditions. The petitioner had secured the loan by mortgage of 2 acres 15= cents of her property in addition to 1 acre 30 cents of the property belonging to her husband. Even before filing of the writ petition the petitioners property wherein the Unit also was situated was brought up for a sale on 27.8.2003, by the respondent Bank by a notification dated 29.6.2003. The Bank bid the property in the absence of any other bidders. Though within 30 days the bank could have approached the Joint Register for confirmation of sale, it is submitted that the bank waited till 27.4.2005 for the petitioner to make payments to satisfy the loan amount. On failure of the petitioner to do so, the sale was got confirmed in 2005 and the respondent Bank expended further amounts towards the conveyance of the property in the name of the Bank.

(3.) THEN , again, when the writ petition came up for hearing on 2.9.2011, it was fairly submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent bank that after giving credit to the amounts paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court as on 30.11.2006, the balance amount remaining defaulted was Rs.39,38,126/ . The Bank also fairly submitted that they were willing to waive an amount of Rs.14,27,948/ , if the petitioner pays the balance amount in lump with interest from 31.8.2011 on or before 15.09.2011. This was as per a One Time Settlement Scheme of the Bank; despite the fact that the same was not applicable to the petitioner since the land had already been purchased in the name of the Bank and the loan amount remained satisfied. However, as a measure of goodwill, the respondent Bank had come forward to make such a concession so that on satisfaction of the amounts defaulted till then; the petitioner would be enabled to have re conveyance of her property.