IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19500 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJU GEORGE , S/O.GEORGE, PICHAPPILLIL HOUSE, KOLAPPURAM,PAINGOTTOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD P.B.NO. 4, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-30 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD MUVATTUPUZHA TOWN BRANCH, MUVATTUPUZHA REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD P.B.NO.4 ,KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-30. SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R3 & R4 ADV.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27 /06 /2008, THE COURT ON 27/06/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19500 of 2008(U) ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that he availed a loan along with his father and brothers and owing to default different writ petitions were filed as stated in the writ petition. Ultimately, he obtained Ext.P3 judgment. It is clear even from that judgment, that the bank has a categoric stand that if the petitioner would wipe of the entire outstandings before 31-03-2008, the Bank will give a reduction of four lakhs. That submission was recorded and that writ petition was closed accordingly. Merely because the copy of that judgment was received by the petitioner only at a later point of time, I am persuaded to believe that the bank would not have given him the benefit of what was recorded in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Ext. P3 judgment had the petitioner utilised the opportunity. Therefore, the learned counsel for the bank is right in now stating that the bank cannot be compelled to reduce any amount from the total outstanding, particularly, when it is a commercial transaction and the facility was availed from the bank in 1994. If the petitioner has W.P.(C)No.19500/2008 -2- any further objection to Ext.P6 in terms of the SARFAESI Act, he has got alternate remedies under that statute, at the appropriate stage. Without prejudice to that course, the writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. bps W.P.(C)No.19500/2008 -2-