IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 6030 of 2010(C) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VISWANATHAN ARINGOTH, ARAKANDIYIL HOUSE, EACHUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER, THE MOWANCHERY CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD., NO.F-1279, CHAKKARAKKAL, KANNUR DIST. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KANNUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN R2 & R3 GOVT.PLEADER K.S. MOHAAMMED HASIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS. WP(C).No. 6030 of 2010(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO.42 OF GDS 2 . P2: COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED ON 29TH MACH 2007. P3: COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT ON 29/03/2007 TO 31/01/2010. P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ON 04/08/2009. P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ON 07/11/2009. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KASARAGOD DATED 02/07/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE SVS. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6030 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action initiated by the first respondent bank for recovery of amounts from the guarantor of a loan transaction that the petitioner has with the bank. According to the petitioner, the amount was actually availed under a Group Deposit Scheme and since there was default in repayment of the amounts, the same was converted into a personal loan. 2. The petitioner is a persistent defaulter who had defaulted repayment of another loan and had availed the present loan for the purpose of closing the earlier loan that was remaining in default. It is submitted that the bank was persuaded to sanction the loan on the guarantee of the person who had stood as surety. The surety had bound himself to repay the amount to the bank and therefore, the bank has the right to proceed against the said person for the recovery of the amount due. In view of the above, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. wpc No.6030/2010 2 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount that is due provided he is permitted to make payments in six monthly instalments. The counsel for the bank opposes the grant of any such facility to pay the amount due in instalments. However, he assures that if the petitioner approaches the bank with a suitable request for such facility, the bank would certainly consider the same sympathetically. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a proper representation to the first respondent seeking payment of the balance amount payable by him in instalments within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such a representation is received, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt thereof and shall pass final orders thereon. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/