IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 174 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. M.A.PANCHALI,AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.LATE M.A.UNNERIKUTTY, PANCHAJANYAM, OLD ZILLA BUNGALOW ROAD, CALICUT,KERALA STATE. 2. M.A.SHISHAN, AGED 50, S/O.LATE M.A.UNNERIKUTTY, PANCHAJANYAM, OLD ZILLA BUNGALOW ROAD, CALICUT,KERALA STATE. 3. M.A.SAJEEV, AGED 45, S/O.LATE M.A.UNNERIKUTTY, PANCHAJANYAM, OLD ZILLA BUNGALOW ROAD, CALICUT,KERALA STATE. 4. JALAJA PRAKASH, AGED 53, D/O.LATE M.A.UNNERIKUTTY, PANCHAJANYAM, OLD ZILLA BUNGALOW ROAD, CALICUT,KERALA STATE. 5. SHEELA JAHANGIR, AGED 47, S/O.LATE M.A.UNNERIKUTTY, PANCHAJANYAM, OLD ZILLA BUNGALOW ROAD, CALICUT,KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BRANCH OFFICE, S.M.STREET,KOZHIZKODE,REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, INTEGRATED ZONAL OFFICE, SHATHABDI BHAVAN, MINI BYEPASS ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.174 of 2008-U APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 19.4.2007 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 7.6.2007 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE CHIEF MANAGER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 17.7.2007 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN M.A.NOS.66,67,68,69 OF 2006 DATED 18.9.2007 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 31.10.2003 PASSED BY THE DRT, ERNAKULAM IN O.A.NO.94 OF 2003 EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.8.2005 IN IA NO.795 OF 2005 IN O.A.NO.97 OF 2003 PASSED BY DRT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.2.2006 IN I.A.NO.163/2006 IN O.A.NO.97/2003 PASSED BY DRT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R1(D) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.2006 IN WP(C) NO.1232 OF 2005 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXT.R1(E) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.2.2006 IN WP © NO.3012 OF 2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXT.R1(F) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.3.2006 IN I.A.NO.4296/2006 IN WP(C) NO.1232 OF 2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXT.R1(G) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.3.2006 IN I.A.NO.509 OF 2006 IN O.A.NO.97 OF 2003 PASSED BY DRT, ERNAKULAM. / TRUE COPY / ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 174 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Though substantial relief has been sought in this writ petition the third prayer alone is pressed in this writ petition. Here the request made by the petitioners is to grant three months time to them to pay the entire balance amount towards interest for the delayed payment due to the 1st respondent bank. Petitioners refer me to Ext. P5. In Ext. P5 the Debt Relief Appellate Tribunal has granted time till 31.12.2007 to pay the amount of Rs.1,02,08,946/- less the amount paid by them after filing the appeal before the DRAT. Although in the writ petition petitioner has sought for 3 months time to discharge the liability, when the case was taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioners confines his request for enlargement of the time fixed by the D.R.A.T. till the end of January, 2008. 2. I heard counsel for the bank. WPC No. 174/08 -2- 3. The respondent bank has filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to the bank, parties are bound by Exts. R1(a), a final order by the DRT passed on 31.10.2003. Since the compromise has not materialised, the bank would contend for the position that it is entitled to realise the entire amount. It is also contended that subsequently the request for extension was made by the petitioners to the D.R.T. Itself and that was unsuccessful. 4. It may be true that the petitioners and the bank were governed by the terms of Ext. R1(a), but the fact remains that the D.R.A.T., has passed Ext. P5 on 18.9.2007 giving them time for paying the amount mentioned in Ext. P5 till 31.12.2007. Therefore the bank is not justified in contending for the position that the petitioners are not entitled to make request for enlargement of time since the parties are fully governed by Ext. R1(a). Now that Ext. P5 has been passed by a competent body, the parties are equally governed by Ext. P5 also. 5. As regards the request of the petitioner for enlargement of time till the end of January, 2008 is concerned, I do not think that there is anything unreasonable in the request so made. Since substantial amount is to be paid and the D.R.A.T, has granted time WPC No. 174/08 -3- till 31.12.2007 I direct that the time granted by the D.R.A.T. will stand extended till 31.1.2008. This is all the more for the reason that the amount that is now remaining unpaid is only towards interest and more than Rs.3,60,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioners in full discharge of the principal amount that is due. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-