IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17823 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. FATHIMA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.KOYAKUTTY, ARIMBRA PUTHUSSERY, KODIYATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. KOYAKUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.MAMMAD, ARIMBRA PUTHUSSERY, KODIYATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOZHIKODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.4362, KOZHIKODE 670 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KOZHIKODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.4362, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. THE SENIOR INSPECTOR AND SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THE KOZHIKODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.4362, KOZHIKODE 670 004. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R1 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17823 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners had availed of two loans from the respondent Bank for an amount of of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- each, some time in 2000. Default was committed and ultimately recovery proceedings were initiated. At that stage, the petitioners applied for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. Request was allowed and in terms of the provisions of the Scheme, the petitioners were permitted to discharge the liability in 10 equal instalments. 2. As is seen from Ext.P2, in terms of the provisions of the Scheme, once the benefit is availed of interest will stand frozen, and the amount will be given credit only when the full payment is received. Admittedly, the payment was not made in terms of the Scheme, as a result of which, the Bank appropriated a portion of the remittance in satisfaction of one of the loans, viz. NFL 427 and the balance available amount was adjusted towards the other loan, NFL 539. In view of the default thus committed by the petitioners, the WP(C) No.17823/2009 -2- benefit of the OTS Scheme offered to the petitioners was lost, and by Ext.P2 the petitioners were called upon to discharge the balance liability due to the Bank. On receipt of Ext.P2, the demand was disputed by Ext.P3. When by Ext.P4, the mortgaged property was scheduled to be auctioned on 01/07/2009, the writ petition was filed. It is stated by the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 26/06/2009, Rs.50,000/- has already been remitted. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the Bank, I am inclined to think that there is absolutely no substance in the contention raised by the petitioners that the demand by Exts.P2 & P4 are vitiated for any reason. As a matter of fact, on account of the default committed, the petitioners lost the benefit of the OTS Scheme. If that be so, the Bank is entitled to realise its full dues. I also do not find any fault with the Bank for the manner in which the amount remitted by the petitioners has been appropriated. Therefore, the challenge against Exts.P2 & P4 fails. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners now submit that the petitioners have not been told how the balance outstanding has WP(C) No.17823/2009 -3- been quantified and that even a statement of account has not been furnished. Now that the petitioners have remitted Rs.50,000/- in pursuance to the interim orders passed by this Court, it is only appropriate that the petitioners are informed of the manner in which their liability has been quantified. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall disclose the basis on which the liability of the petitioners has been quantified with reference to the statement of accounts maintained by it. Once such details are disclosed to the petitioners, if the petitioners remit the amount due to them within four weeks thereafter, the same will be accepted in discharge of the liability. The sale in pursuance to Ext.P4 will be adjourned for four weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg