IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 21 of 2009() ------------------- THE JUDGMENT 11TH DECEMBER 2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) No.34440/2008 APPELLANT/ APPELLANT: ------------------ P.P.JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.P.V.PANOOSE, PANACHICKAL HOUSE, THAZHATHU VADAKARA, VELLAVOOR, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER FOR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTAYAM. ADV.SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR R3 SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.A.G.ANITHA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------- W.A No.21 OF 2009 ---------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34440/2008. The petitioner was in default in relation to a loan availed by him from the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. for running an industry. The industry failed and the arrears mounted. When coercive steps were taken to recover the amount due to the petitioner, in accordance with law, this writ petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions. “5. However, taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition of the bank was pending before this Court from 1995 to 2001, it is ordered that if the petitioner deposits the entire amount as claimed by the bank within three weeks, the third respondent will place any representation that the petitioner would make for consideration by the appropriate authority, so that a lenient view could be taken even as regards the accrued interest, treating the case of the petitioner as an exceptional one. Any benefit that could be extended in the commercial wisdom of the bank would be thus extended. The recovery proceeding will not be persuaded if the petitioner pays the amount as aforesaid. It is W.A.No.21/2009 2 also ordered that on deposit as above, the title documents which created equitable mortgage will be released to the petitioner, so that the petitioner could sell the property. The total outstandings will be cleared in terms of what is stated above and any amount in excess will be refunded to the petitioner.” 2. Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment to the extent it says, the petitioner should deposit the entire amount demanded by the bank, this writ appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in several other cases, the bank have settled the concerned loan accounts giving substantial reliefs. The bank may not extend the said benefit to him. Further, if the entire amount is paid to the bank, they may not refund the excess amount, if any, paid. 3. We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank. We notice that the learned Judge has made certain observations, so that, the petitioner gets the maximum benefits, which can be extended by the bank in accordance with the standing instructions governing such matters. We find nothing wrong with the direction of the learned Judge to deposit the entire amount demanded by the W.A.No.21/2009 3 bank for the release of the title deeds. The petitioner cannot claim the title deeds by depositing the amount, he thinks that is due to the bank. He has to go by the decision of the bank, at the first instance. If he has got any dispute regarding the amount, the appellant may pay the amount under protest and workout his remedy for the recovery of the excess amount, if any, paid by him. With this clarification, the writ appeal is disposed of. The time granted by the learned Judge for paying the amount and for making the representation is extended by three weeks from today. The Bank undertakes to take steps in the matter, within one month thereafter. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ps