IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28387 of 2004(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SULAIKHA, W/O. HAMEED, KACHERIPARAMBIL, P.O. EKROOL, THALAYAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINACIAL CORPORATION, M. SQUARE COMPLEX, PAVAMANI ROAD, CALICUT. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DT.27.11.2001. P2: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST FROM PETITIONER TO THE MANAGER, K.F.C. DT.20.10.2003. P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.28.10.2003 ISSUED TO PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DT.12.12.2003 FROM PETITIONER TO R2. P5: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM R2 DT.16.12.2003. P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.9.2.2004 IN W.A. 263/04. P7: RUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.12.2.2004 FROM THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P8: TRUE COPY OF TELEGRAM SERVED ON THE PETITIONER. P9: TRUE COPY OF LETTER TO THE PETITIONER FROM KFC DT.6.7.2004. P10: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.31 DT.10.7.2003. P11: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY KFC TO THE PETITIONER DT.12.11.2004. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.28387 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for KFC. The petitioner has settled liability under OTS scheme. However, counsel submitted that petitioner is not given full incentives under the OTS scheme because in NPA accounts respondents were bound to waive full interest after 1.4.2000. However, Standing Counsel for KFC submitted that since value of security is much more than the debt, petitioner's account cannot be treated as NPA. I find force in this contention because liability was only Rs.5.98 lakhs as against security valued at around Rs.10 lakhs. Moreover, petitioner is granted a reduction of Rs.2.5 lakhs which is a substantial amount compared to the debt due from the petitioner. The W.P. is, therefore, disposed of with direction to the State not to recover any collection charges from the KFC as the same is not recovered from the petitioner under interim orders of this court. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms