IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15243 of 2006(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.K.VELAYUDHAN, PALLAYIL HOUSE, MUNAMPAM, PALLIPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MAHILA, AGED 58, W/O. P.K.VELAYUDHAN, PALLAYIL HOUSE, MUNAMPAM, PALLIPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, JEWS STREET, KOCHI-35. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., ERNAKULAM. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, ADDL.SC.,KSFE LTD. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. MATHEW VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15243 of 2006(M) APPENDIX PETTIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28.09.2001 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.10.2001 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 13.01.2004 BY THE SENIOR MANAGER (DEFAULT) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 :` TRUE COPY OF LETTER DAT ED 19.02.04 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF R EPRESENTATION DATED 03.03.04 WITH CALCULATION STATEMENTS BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 8115/04 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.03.04 WITH STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF AUDIT STATEMENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS.No. 219 /04 IN THE FILE OF SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.10.05 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2005 OF THIS HOMN'BLE COURT. EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DAT ED 26.01.2006 CONTAINING STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 13.02.2006 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DAT ED 24.03.2006 BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT., 29.03.06 FOR RS.80000/- ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. WP(C).No. 15243 of 2006(M) EXT.P16 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07.04.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CALLING UP THE PETITIONER TO PAY 19 INSTALLMENTS WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF CHIT NO.55/97-06. EXT.P17 : TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.05.06 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P18 : TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS WORKED OUT BY THE PETITIONER WITH QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 15243 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging Ext.P17 proceedings issued by the respondents, seeking to realize a sum of Rs.1.9 lakhs with interest, stated as due under various chitty/loan transactions. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that the first petitioner was a subscriber to three different chits of a price value of Rs. Five lakhs each and one chit was priced for a sum of Rs. 4.54 lakhs in the name of the first petitioner. The first petitioner had also availed three loans, each of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, creating charges over the amount due under the chits and the second petitioner, who is none other than the wife of the first petitioner, stood as guarantor . 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount worked out and shown by the respondents in Ext.P17 is not true or correct. In fact, the dispute had arisen years back, when the first petitioner was constrained to approach this Court W.P.(C) No. 15243 OF 2006 2 by filing W.P.(C) 8115 of 2004 wherein Ext. P6 judgment was passed by this Court directing the second respondent/Branch Manager of the KSFE to issue a statement of accounts to the petitioner, as specified, with liberty to the petitioner to apply for 'OTS' and to satisfy the liability; simultaneously intercepting the recovery proceedings for a period of six weeks, subject to the terms of settlement in respect of the period thereafter. 4. The second respondent, in compliance with the said direction issued Ext.P7 statement of accounts, which, according to the petitioners herein, was not correct or proper, as many of the payments effected by the first petitioner were omitted to be shown and given credit to, which in turn was brought to the notice of the respondents concerned, by filing a representation in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 30573 of 2005, which was disposed of by Ext. P11 judgment, specifically directing the KSFE to give credit to the amount due to the first petitioner under the chit which was priced in favour of him and lying un-disbursed and to re-work the actual liability. The concerned respondent was also directed W.P.(C) No. 15243 OF 2006 3 to furnish a fresh statement of accounts as to the balance amount due and the petitioners were permitted to satisfy the same, also observing that they could approach the respondents to have the benefit of 'OTS'. The case of the petitioners is that it is without any regard to the actual facts and figures that the respondents have issued Ext. P17, demanding an exorbitant amount of Rs.1.90 lakhs, which in turn is subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 5. Obviously when the case came up for admission before this Court on 12.07.2006, the coercive proceedings stated as initiated against the petitioners were intercepted, granting an interim order on condition that the petitioners deposited the due amount at the rate of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) every month, which was to be effected on or before the last working day commencing from July 2006. It was also stipulated in unequivocal terms that, if any installment was defaulted by the petitioners, the benefit of installment, as granted by the said order, would stand recalled and that the respondents would be at liberty to proceed with the distress W.P.(C) No. 15243 OF 2006 4 action available. Respondents 1 and 2 were also directed to place the pleadings on record showing the statement of accounts, which part is still to be satisfied from the part of the said respondents. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, with specific reference to the 'memo' dated 29.07.2006 and 29.08.2006 and also copies of the receipts issued by the KSFE in respect of the remittance of a sum of Rs.35000/- on 29.07.2006 and on 29.08.2006 submits that the petitioners have complied with the interim direction and have been effecting the payments as ordered . It is also stated by the learned Counsel that there is absolutely no default on the part of the petitioners and that the entire liability covered by Ext.P17 has been cleared in toto and that nothing further is due from the petitioners to the respondents. 7. The above submission made from the part of the petitioners is not controverted in any manner by the concerned respondents; nor have they chosen to file any statement despite the specific direction given by this Court on 12.07.2006. In the W.P.(C) No. 15243 OF 2006 5 above facts and circumstances, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the entire liability covered by Ext.P17 has been satisfied. 8. As the matter stands so, satisfaction of the liability is recorded, making it clear that that no further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P17 shall be pursued against the petitioners in respect of the same cause of action. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk