IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 23835 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.A.PAREED, S/O.ABUBACKER, KANELY HOUSE, NAYATHODU, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.P.IBRAHIM KUTTY, S/O.K.A.PAREED, KANELY HOUSE, NAYATHODU, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. K.P.ABDU, S/O.K.A.PAREED, KANELY HOUSE, NAYATHODU, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. K.P.ABU, S/O.K.A.PAREED, KANELY HOUSE, NAYATHODU, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KALOOR, KOCHI. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23835 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners had availed of 9 loans from the respondent Corporation. Out of the 9 loans, it appears that the Federal Bank had agreed to take over 7 loans. Thereupon, the petitioners sought premature closure of the aforesaid 7 loans. The respondent Corporation demanded Rs.5,94,911/- as preclosure premium and Rs.20,689/- towards interest accrued on DD collection, and the petitioner paid the same. The petitioner sought refund of the aforesaid amount and that was rejected by Ext.P7. It is challenging Ext.P7, the writ petition is filed. 2. The respondents have filed two affidavits. In the second affidavit they themselves have stated that an excess amount of Rs.1,52,080/- has been collected from the petitioners toward preclosure premium. Necessarily, therefore, this amount has to be refunded with 12% interest thereon. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that going by Ext.R1(a) circular, preclosure premium is charged at 2% of WP(C) No.23835/2007 -2- the principal outstanding. It is stated that the principal outstanding as per Ext.P2 being Rs.1,58,40,518/-, 2% thereof could only be Rs.3,16,810/-. It is therefore stated that there is an excess collection. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is sought to be contradicted by the learned counsel for the KFC by referring to Ext.P1(a) itself, which provides that while calculating the principal outstanding, repayment will be taken as per original schedule. It is stated that the petitioners had made excess payment and it is therefore, that the principal amount is quantified at Rs.1,58,40,518/-. According to the Corporation, as the principal outstanding is reckoned on the basis of the original schedule, the same is much more and the preclosure premium is 2% of such dues. This issue is a possible interpretation of Ext.P2 and hence cannot be interfered with. 4. Yet another contention now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of the agreement between the KFC and petitioners, the petitioners were entitled to 1% rebate in the interest, in view of the prompt payment that was made by them. It is true that such a claim has been made by the WP(C) No.23835/2007 -3- petitioners in Ext.P6 representation to the Corporation. But, however, the same has not been answered by the Corporation in Ext.P7. 5. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to approach the Corporation claiming 1% rebate, in which case, the Corporation shall deal with the claim of the petitioners and pass orders thereon. It is directed that if representation in this behalf is received, orders shall be passed within four weeks of its receipt. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg