IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28581 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOSEPH XAVIER ANTHARAPPER,48 YEARS, S/O.XAVIER, 1/185,MUTTAM, THAIKATTUKARA.P.O, ALUVA-683106. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/ CHIEF ENGINEER, 239,VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, MUMBAI-400021. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI-400 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.28581/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPTS AND THE ENTRIES IN THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MASTER CIRCULAR ON ASSET CLASSIFICATION. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.28581 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter for quite some time, sought for leave to preserve all contentions to be agitated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He says that the amounts demanded by the bank are much in excess of the total amounts payable under the contract by way of agreed instalment rate. Learned counsel for the bank submits that the submission on behalf of the petitioner is not correct and that the transaction would not stand regularised by paying the defaulted instalments and the rates that would apply would be those which are applicable to defaulted loans and recalled loans. This is recorded and the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the parties and with liberty for the petitioner to move the DRT in accordance with law. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.