IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 19389 of 2006(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MANY, W/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, MUTHALAPPARA HOUSE, NENMARA P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NENMARA BRANCH, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION FILED BY THE 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY IN THE ABOVE CONSUMER DISPUTES CASE O.P.NO. 36/2005 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 8.11.2005 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 8.11.2005 FIRST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION DATED 16.2.2002 PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER EXT.R1(b) TRUE CDOPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR MEDIUM TERM LOAN EXECUTED JOINTLY BY THE PETITIONER AND HER DAUGHTER. EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION DATED 25.3.2002 FROM M.M. GEETHA EXT.R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 26.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO M.M. GEETHA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 19389 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of loan availed by the petitioner's daughter for purchase of photocopying machine. Loan was advanced by the Bank under PMRY scheme, which is normally not covered by any security. However, in this case, it is reported that petitioner's house property is given as security for the loan. Petitioner's case is that machine is defective from the very beginning and consumer case filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad is pending. It seems that some interim order passed by the CDRF was taken in appeal or revision before the State Commissoion, which is delaying disposal of case before CDRF. Since interest of the Bank is also involved, I feel early disposal of the consumer case is required. Accordingly State Commission is directed to dispose of revision or appeal pending against the orders in OP 35/05 of CDRF, Palakkad within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by 2 the petitioner. The CDRF will dispose of the O.P. within three months thereafter. Recovery proceedings will remain stayed for eight months from now or till disposal of the case pending before CDRF finally by the CDRF, Palakkad whichever is earlier. In between it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Bank for settlement of liability, and I am sure the Bank will give all incentives to the petitioner to settle the liability, if they are satisfied that the business was a failure In any case if petitioner offers payments, the Bank should not charge penal or default interest and allow the petitioner to settle liability with agreed if not reduced rate of interest. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3