High CourtsSingle Bench(2002) 06 KL CK 0017

Telwin Augustine vs K.F.C.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 10 June 2002 · Citation: (2002) 1 KLJ 768

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
O.P. No. 4960 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 304 words

K.A. Abdul Gafoor

1.

The petitioner applied for a loan from the first respondent to build a fishing boat. Ext.Pl shows that the first respondent has sanctioned a loan of Rs. 20,50,000. Out of this an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs has been paid, to the petitioner. It has been disbursed upon a guarantee deed executed by the guarantors suggested by the petitioner. Utilising this amount, the petitioner had commenced the building of the boat. Later the guarantors have withdrawn. The petitioner is ready to substitute the guarantors to get the balance amount. The first respondent is not releasing the balance amount sanctioned as per Ext.Pl. Therefore the petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the first respondent to release the balance amount sanctioned as per Ext.Pl. It is submitted by the first respondent that though the petitioner had started construction of the boat by using the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs granted as part payment towards the loan sanctioned as per Ext. P1, the guarantors have now withdrawn because of certain misdeeds by the petitioner. Not only that, -the petitioner had also moved valuable parts from the hull of the boat which was partly built. Thus the petitioner has violated condition of grant of loan. To such a person, the loan amount cannot be disbursed, the first respondent submits. Grant and sanction of loan by a financial institution to a particular person is based on the confidence reposed in each other. When the financial institution does not have confidence in the person who has to avail of the loan, no court can direct that the financial institution shall part with money to a person in whom the financial institution does not have confidence. This is not a matter for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Original Petition fails. Dismissed.