IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3364 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMANKITTA @ RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.VELLA, AGED 90 YEARS, KAITHARAVU HOUSE, VANDITHAVALAM PO CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PALAKKAD BRANCH, NURANI PO, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD,KOCHI. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION PALAKKAD. 4. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMANKITTA @ RAMAKRISHNAN, KAITHARAVA HOUSE, VANDITHALAVAM, CHITTUR. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 3364 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a 'ninuagenerian' having crossed the age of 90 years has been driven to this Court, allegedly because of the lapse and omission of the part of his son who has borrowed a sizable amount from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property belonging to the petitioner. Since the borrower turned to be a defaulter, the Bank proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act, when, the son of the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) 28484/2009, which led to Ext.P3 judgment, whereby he was permitted to clear the liability by way of ‘four’ equal monthly instalments commencing from 15th of January, 2010. The petitioner is before this Court stating that he was never a party to the said verdict and further that the respondents are very much after the petitioner, since the property actually belongs to him (over which the security interest has been created as mentioned above). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, notwithstanding the age and hardship of the petitioner, earnest efforts are being made to cause the liability to be cleared, if at all the same is not satisfied by the son, i.e., the petitioner in Ext.P2 judgment. The only prayer is that the petitioner may be permitted to WP(C) No.3364/2010 2 approach the Bank for availing the benefit of waiver of 'penal interest' or for some or other concessions with regard to actual liability. 2. Considering the particular facts and circumstances including the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was none other than the petitioner/father, who satisfied the first instalment of Rs.50,000/- as directed to be paid by this Court vide Ext.P2 judgment, for and on behalf of his son and also taking note of the willingness expressed by the petitioner to clear the liability, if the same is not satisfied by the son, i.e., the petitioner in Ext.P2, the petitioner is permitted to clear the outstanding liability by way of 'four' monthly instalments with liberty to approach the respondent Bank for availing the concessions or allowances as sought for. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the first respondent in the above regard and if the same is filed within two weeks, the same shall be considered and finalized by the first respondent, giving the benefits, if any, to the permissible extent. It is made clear that the liability to be satisfied under the loan transaction will stand confined to the amount to be finalized and communicated by the respondent Bank as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc