SURESH KUMAR Vs. THE CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner had availed two loans from the first respondent bank. According to the petitioner, a one time settlement scheme was offered to the petitioner, as per Ext.P3 dated 11.11.2015, whereby petitioner was directed to pay a spot amount of Rs. 90,000/- and the petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount on 10.02.2016. However, the petitioner could pay only an amount of Rs. 3,90,000/-. Now, recovery action consequent to the default on the part of the petitioner is initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, and a notice under Section 19 is issued to detain the retiral benefits to the petitioner. It is in this background seeking to quash Ext. P6 initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and for other related reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank and learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent bank submitted that after payment of Rs. 3,90,000/-, an amount of Rs. 13,90,298/- is remaining due from the petitioner, and if the petitioner is making the said payment in reasonable installments, the bank will refrain itself from executing the coercive action already launched. Learned counsel for the bank also submitted that petitioner has also availed an agricultural loan, which is not mentioned in the writ petition. The balance outstanding as specified above is on account of all the three loans and the same is recorded.