IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 712 of 2010(K) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16304/2010 Dated 30/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN WP(C) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.PRAVEEN, KUDILIL HOUSE NEAR PONNURUNNI TEMPLE, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19 2. MRS. LATHA PRAVEEN KUDILIL HOUSE, NEAR PONNURUNNI TEMPLE, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19 BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE AXIS BANK LTD 41/418, FIRST FLOOR, CHICAGO PLAZA RAJAJI ROAD, KOCHI 682 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT 2. THE ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT & AUTHORISED OFFICER, AXIS BANK LTD 41/418, FIRST FLOOR, CHICAGO PLAZA RAJAJI ROAD, KOCHI 682 035 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.MURALEEDHARAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KL. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- R.P.NO. 712 OF 2010 IN W.P(C) No.16304 of 2010- ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The petitioners seek to review the judgment passed by this Court on 30.6.2010, whereby the petitioners were directed to satisfy the entire ‘overdue’ amount of Rs.5.92 lakhs, by way of instalments as specified and to continue to effect the regular EMIs without fail. The review petitioners submit that, the above verdict happened to be passed, based on an incorrect submission made by the learned counsel for the Bank that the ‘overdue’ amount till 30.5.2010 was Rs.5,92,724/-. 2. The review petitioners, with reference to para 3 of the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, submits that the respondent Bank has conceded that there is an ‘excess payment’ effected by the petitioners to the extent of Rs.3,57,933/-. It is further stated in the very same paragraph, that in such cases, if the borrower so desires, the Bank will reschedule the EMIs for the future instalments however adding that, in the instant case, the R.P.NO. 712 OF 2010 2 petitioners had not approached the respondent for rescheduling the EMIs, which made the Bank to appropriate the ‘excess amount’ in respect of the principal amount. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that, in view of the averments made by the Bank in para 3 of the counter affidavit, the petitioners would like to have the ‘excess amount’ set off against the ‘overdue’ amount and once this is done, the actual ‘overdue’ amount will be substantially scaled down and the petitioners are ready and willing to clear the balance amount in respect of the defaulted instalments forthwith and will continue to effect the regular EMIs without fail. 4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that, the Bank does not have any objection for setting off the ‘excess amount’ against the ‘overdue’ amount; subject to the condition that the petitioners shall clear the balance overdue amount forthwith and continue to effect the regular EMIs. 5. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Bank that the balance overdue amount will come nearly Rs.1.9 lakhs as in July 2010, the review petitioners are permitted to remit the same by way of 'two' equal monthly R.P.NO. 712 OF 2010 3 instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 15th of September, 2010 and the next one, on or before the 15th of October 2010. Subject to this, the loan account will stand regularised. This will be in addition to the liability of the petitioners to clear the regular EMIs as well. The default clause as contained in the judgment dated 30.6.2010 will continue. The review petition is disposed of as above, effecting appropriate modifications to the judgment as aforesaid. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab R.P.NO. 712 OF 2010 4