IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 22324 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THOMASKUTTY JOB, S/O. VARKEY JOB, KARIMATTAM, RUBY NAGAR, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KFC, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA FINANCIAL CORP. R1 & R2 BY SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 22324 of 2009-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondents seeking to realise the amount in excess of the actual liability, stating that discriminating steps are being taken in the matter of extending waiver of belated interest and thus contending that the petitioner is entitled to get waiver of 50% of the belated interest. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a Company who had availed two loans from the respondent corporation on the strength of the security created over the property. The repayment was defaulted and after a series of events and developments, Ext.P8 notice was issued seeking to realize a sum of Rs.3.34 crores, granting the benefit of 'One Time Settlement'. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, with reference to the facts and figures given by the respondent Corporation, in their statement of accounts as on 31.8.2009 that the outstanding liability is Rs.328.9 lakhs. It is stated that the W.P(C) No. 9793 of 2010-Y 2 extent of waiver of belated interest granted in the case of the petitioner is only less than 10% , being a consolidated figure of Rs.10 lakhs; whereas in the case of the four other Companies enlisted in Ext.P34, the extent of waiver ranges from 75% to 100%. The learned counsel further submits that the criteria for deciding the relevant case for providing waiver of belated interest, is clearly stated in page 7 of the statement filed by the respondent and as provided under Clause 'b' extracted in para 17 there under. Such benefit is available in the case of borrowers/co-obligants having no such property other than the residential property, constituting the relevant head under which the petitioner comes. 4. Pursuant to the instructions given by the respondent, the petitioner filed an 'affidavit' as borne by Ext.P28 before the respondents, asserting the factual position in this regard, stating that the petitioner does not have any other property than the residential property and seeks for waiver of the entire belated interest. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the matter was caused to be considered by the 'High Power Committee' W.P(C) No. 9793 of 2010-Y 3 constituted, who decided to provide waiver to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs. Subsequently, the matter was considered by the 'Board' and the decision taken by the High Power Committee was confirmed, as borne by Ext.P35, which is subjected to the challenge in the amended Writ Petition. 5. With regard to the sequence of events after the decision taken by the respondents to provide the benefit of 'One Time Settlement', the learned standing counsel submits with reference to the contents of the statement filed after amending the Writ Petition, that the concession has already been extended to the petitioner, which is more so, in view of the fact that the total liability has been scaled down to an extent of Rs.120.09 lakhs and it was accordingly, that the final figure under the One Time Settlement was stipulated as Rs.334 lakhs as agreed on 24.2.2006. The said liability was further reduced by the High Power Committee and also by the Board, to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs. 6. The learned standing counsel submits that the normal rate of interest is '12%', whereas in the case of the petitioner, it was W.P(C) No. 9793 of 2010-Y 4 reduced to '10.5%'. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, no such reduction was ever made in the case of the four different companies mentioned in Ext.P34 and that, this much concession with regard to the actual liability, having not been provided to the said parties, the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner is not liable to be entertained, as devoid of any merit or bonafides. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances particularly since the petitioner has not given the actual facts and figures with regard to the liability mentioned in Ext.P34 and further since there is absolutely no challenge as to the extent of deduction stated as made by the respondent for more than Rs.130 lakhs, enabling the petitioner to clear the liability by way of One Time Settlement, this Court finds that the submissions made from the part of the respondents are of considerable force. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision taken by the Board vide Ext.P35 itself has not been properly understood or implemented by the respondents while W.P(C) No. 9793 of 2010-Y 5 seeking to realise the balance amount. The learned counsel submits that, as per Ext.P35, the Board has decided to waive belated interest in excess of Rs.75.39 lakhs, while the total belated interest in the case of the petitioner is Rs.114.71 lakhs. This contention does not appear to be correct or palatable as the decision is of to waive belated interest in excess of the “value of remaining collateral property” which is assessed at Rs.75.39 lakhs. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the respondents insist that the petitioner will have to satisfy the entire amount of Rs.328.49 lakhs as on 31.8.2009 (the figure which is stated as subject to further interest to be satisfied by the petitioner as put forth by the learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent), the petitioner might be permitted to have some time to clear the due amount; simultaneously seeking for a direction to provide a statement of account so as to finalise the actual figures. It is stated that the petitioner requires three month's time; which however is vehementally opposed from the part of the respondents pointing out that the OTS amount was agreed and finalized more than 4 W.P(C) No. 9793 of 2010-Y 6 years ago, on 24.2.2006. 9. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant some breathing time, taking note of the extent of liability to be discharged. Accordingly, the petitioner is grant time till 31.5.2010. All recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time; however with liberty to proceed further, if the petitioner fails to honour the commitment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab