IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32903 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PAUL PERINCHERY, AGED 42 YEARS,S/O. OF LATE SRI.J.P.PERINCHERY, RESIDING AT PERINCHERY HOUSE,FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER SRI.G.ARUN GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER(CRLD)AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER,NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, CONVENT ROAD JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM-682 035. 2. SASI ANTO PERINCHERY, AGED 66,W/O. OF LATE SRI.ANTO PERINCHERY,RESIDING AT PERINCHERY HOUSE,PALLIKULAM JUNCTION,THRISSUR-680005. BY SRI.A.V.THOMAS - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32903 of 2010-K ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). From Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.829 of 2010, it is evident that the arrears due under the loan account was settled for an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- and this Court had permitted the petitioner to make deposit of the above said amount in instalments of Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 31.3.2010 and the balance amount in four equal monthly instalments starting from 30.4.2010 onwards, and on or before 30th day of the succeeding months. It is evident that inspite of payment of the first instalment of Rs.20,00,000/-, the petitioner had defaulted further payments. Subsequently the petitioner again submitted W.P(C) No.32903 of 2010-K 2 another representation to the respondent Bank as per Ext.P2 seeking to accept the settlement amount of Rs.90,00,000/- and to close the loan account in full and final settlement. Since such representation was not considered, the petitioner again approached this Court and in Ext.P3 judgment this Court directed the respondent Bank to consider Ext.P2 and to pass appropriate orders thereon. It is revealed from Ext.P4 order that on considering such request the Bank had accepted to settle the accounts on the very same amount of Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest due thereon from 31.3.2010 till the date of payment, plus a sum of Rs.20,000/- incurred by the Bank towards legal charges. According to the petitioner a total sum of Rs.93,20,000/- had already been paid. In a calculation statement issued by the Bank, as per Ext.P6, a total amount of Rs.95,48,288/- was demanded being the settled amount along with interest and legal expenses. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 on the ground that the amount claimed therein is not true and correct and the petitioner is not liable for payment of W.P(C) No.32903 of 2010-K 3 interest from 1.4.2010 onwards. According to the petitioner, the interest ought to have been calculated only on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment, from the respective due dates of instalments. 2. From the contentions raised, it is evident that the dispute pertains to calculation of amounts demanded under the settlement. It is revealed that the petitioner had once approached this Court and he was permitted to make payment of the settled amount in a phased manner. But the petitioner could not avail the benefit granted by this Court and defaulted payments of instalments as stipulated. However, the Bank had shown further indulgence in the matter and expressed willingness to accept the settled amount along with payment of belated interest. I am afraid that this Court may not be justified in interfering with the terms of the settlement and the calculations effected on the basis of such settlement, that too in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to make out remedies with the respondent, if they W.P(C) No.32903 of 2010-K 4 have got any grievance regarding calculation of the interest. If the petitioner makes any such approach, the respondent will consider the same and take a decision thereon. 3. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to liberty of the petitioner to approach the Bank seeking waiver regarding interest amount calculated under Ext.P6 letter. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab