IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 989 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24645/2007 Dated 29/11/2007 .................... PETITIONER --------------------------- AJITH KUMAR.K.S, S/O.SAHADEVAN, AGED 47, KOYIPPILLY HOUSE, MUNAMBAM, PALLIPORT.P.O, ERNAKULAM-683515. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------- ABHILASH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHERAI BRANCH, CHERAI.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- C.O.C. NO. 989 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the State Bank of India. Petitioner is challenging Annexure F whereunder the Bank has demanded a further sum of Rs. 5,24,189.56 over and above total amount of Rs. 15,32,900/- paid by the petitioner. Petitioner has made payment of balance outstanding of Rs. 95,150.09 The disputed amounts are Rs.2,89,039.47 towards interest from 16.3.2006 to 28.2.2008 and Rs. 1,40,000/- towards endorcement agents charges. Counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that petitioner's claim that interest cannot be charged for the period during which loan remained NPA is not correct because as when recovery is initiated interest will be charged along with outstanding debt. Detailed statement is furnished as Annexure R1, which according to counsel for the Bank, does not cover penal rates. Counsel appearing for the Bank further submitted that interest is payable from 1.3.2008 till date because amount is still outstanding. In any case, I do not find any 2 justification for this court to enter into a finding as to whether interest charged is correct or not because this can be questioned before the DRT in appeal against securitisation proceedings. So far as charges claimed by the Bank towards payment made to Enforcement agents which is Rs. 1,40,000/- is concerned, I do not find any justification for the Bank to engage securitisation agents for selling petitioner's property because in several judgments obtained by the petitioner, periodical payments are reflected and petitioner committed payments before this Court and that is the reason why time was extended by this Court. In fact petitioner has discharged most of the liability except some amount of interest. Therefore payment made to securitisation agents is without any justification and it is accordingly cancelled. As and when petitioner deposits total dues, sale deed will be released to him. If petitioner wants, he can file appeal before the DRT and if any such appeal is filed, the DRT will entertain the same and it will be open to DRT to consider refund if excess interest is charged by the Bank. Contempt Case is closed as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3