IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37442 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.GANGALEKSHMI PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. BY ADVS. SRI.N.J.MATHEWS, SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, S.C, K.F.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.37442 OF 2010(E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had availed of three loans from the respondent Corporation. These three loans were disbursed in the following manner. 2. Initially, in 1979, ` 9 lakhs was sanctioned and disbursed and later in 1982 and in 1984 two loans of ` 4.6 lakhs and ` 1.36 lakhs each were also sanctioned and disbursed. Default was committed in the repayment of all the three loans. Proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act were initiated. Mortgaged properties were taken over on 28.2.2005 and sold on 3.2.1996 realizing ` 30,10,000/-. 3. Petitioner challenged the sale in O.P.No.2679/1996 which was dismissed by this court. Against the judgment, Writ Appeal No.2081/1998 was filed. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the purchaser of the property approached this court by filing WP (c).No.6906/2005 for refunding the amount deposited by him. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner and the writ Petition filed by the purchaser were heard together and an on agreed basis, both WPC.No. 37442/2010 :2 : these cases were disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment rendered on 19th July 2006. In terms of the agreement between the parties, petitioner was to pay ` 30,10,000/- to the purchaser and on such payment title deeds deposited by the petitioner with the KFC were ordered to be returned to the petitioner. 4. It would appear that subsequently, Corporation filed I.A.No.34/2007 before this court, stating that larger amounts were still due and therefore the directions in Ext.P2 judgment requiring release of the title deeds should be modified. Finally, that I.A. was disposed of by Ext.R1(a) order passed by the Division Bench, where accepting the statement on behalf of the Corporation that on payment of Rs. 9,40,000/-, the amount quantified applying 12.25% simple interest, respondents will release the title deeds to the petitioner was recorded and on that basis order was passed. 5. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed SLP before the Apex Court. Leave was granted and the Civil Appeal was disposed of by Ext.P4 order. In that order considering the dispute raised by the petitioner about the amount that was ordered to be paid in Ext.R1(a) order of the Division Bench, Apex Court held that it was unnecessary to go into such disputed questions and that WPC.No. 37442/2010 :3 : the amount outstanding to the KFC is a matter which the petitioner can agitate before the KFC itself. It was ordered that once such an adjudication is done and should an occasion so arise, recourse can be sought for in appropriate proceedings before this court. Accordingly petitioner fled Ext.P6 representation before the Corporation on which Ext.P7 order was passed. In that order Corporation rejected the proposal made by the petitioner and directed him to pay ` 9,40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12.5% with effect from 1.6.2007. It is on receipt of Ext.P7 petitioner filed this writ Petition contending mainly that the liability as quantified in Ext.P7 is incorrect and that his liability is less than ` 56,000/-. 6. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out the alleged inconsistence in the statements of account of the Corporation, extract of which have been produced along with the statement filed on behalf of corporation. Particular reference is made to Exts.R1(b) and R1(d). 7. On the other hand the stand taken by the Corporation is that if the liability of the petitioner is qualified applying the contract rate, as on 1.6.2007, the amount outstanding from the WPC.No. 37442/2010 :4 : petitioner is ` 43,02340/- and the amount would be Rs.71,65,987 as on 1.1.2011. It is also submitted that as agreed by them, before this court when Ext.R1(a) order was passed, they have quantified the dues of the petitioner applying simple interest at the rate of 12.25 %. 8. Ext.R1(b) shows that when the liability has been quantified applying interest at 12.25%, as on 1.6.2007 the dues of the petitioner was ` 9,44,112.97. Although referring to Ext.R1(c) it is submitted that the liability so quantified as on 1.1.2011, is `.13,76,738/-. Thus while the petitioner contends that after appropriating the amount of Rs.30.1 lakhs realized on 3.2.1996, when the property was sold, his liability is only Rs.56,000/- and despite that he is willing to pay up to Rs.5 lakhs, on the other hand, Corporation states that the liability, applying the reduced interest rate of 12.25%, is ` 9.44,112.97 as on 1.7.2007 and it is ` 13,76,738/- as on 1.1.2011. 9. In my view, this is a dispute resolution of which cannot be done in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The party who disputes such quantification will have to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction for settlement of WPC.No. 37442/2010 :5 : accounts and seek appropriate reliefs. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/