Contractual terms cannot be altered by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dama Seshadri Naidu, J., decided a writ petition wherein it held that the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not go to the extent of altering the terms of a contract.

As per the facts of the case, the petitioner took a loan of Rs 9 lakhs from the respondent bank and defaulted in making the repayment due to financial problems. As a result, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner submitted that despite his best efforts, could not repay the loan because of his financial difficulties. Therefore, he approached the High Court to direct the respondent Bank to receive the outstanding loan amount in installments.

The High Court observed that its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not go to the extent of altering the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money and, to compel the respondent bank to accept repayment in installment. The Court based on the bank’s concession to accept the repayment of the loan in twelve equal monthly installments directed the petitioner to pay the accumulated dues accordingly. The Court gave liberty to the respondent bank to proceed with recourse to the Court if the petitioner fails to pay any two consecutive installments within the stipulated time. The petition was accordingly disposed of.[Muhammed Saleem M.T v. State of Kerala,2018 SCC OnLine Ker 2998, dated 01-08-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.