IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 1168 of 2008(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19355/2006 Dated 15/06/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- THRISSUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.87, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY IT'S GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP,SC,TRICHUR URBN CO-OPBAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. RAVINDRADAS, S/O.ATTUPURATHU KUNJU EZHUTHACHAN, CHEVOOR P.O., PERUMBILLISSERY, THRISSUR. 3. BEENA, W/O.RAVINDRADAS, ATTUPURATHU HOUSE, CHEVOOR P.O., PERUMBILISSERY, THRISSUR. 4. KARTHYANI, W/O.VADAKKE MEPPULLY RAMAN EZHUTHACHAN, CHEVOOR P.O., THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN ADV.SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. No. 1168 OF 2008 in W.P.(C) No.19355 OF 2006 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is the order of the Tribunal by which, according to the petitioner, the rate of interest is erroneously fixed at 6%. This court disposed of the writ petition permitting payment of the amount in ten equal monthly instalments under the Special Recovery Scheme. It is pointed out that the order of the Tribunal is not set aside. It is stated that the writ petitioner filed another writ petition claiming benefit of 6% and that was disposed of and the Bank is permitted to recover the amount in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is the order of the Arbitrator and Ext.P2 is the order of the Tribunal. In nutshell, it is pointed out that while this court granted the benefit of instalment only on the basis that the amounts will have to be paid under the special recovery scheme the payment was at 15%. Now the petitioner has, only on the basis that Ext.P4 is not quashed, filed another writ RP.1168/08 : 2 : petition and got the order and he need pay only at 6%. It is pointed out in the writ appeal the petitioner was given liberty to file a review petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respondent also. 3. It is true that this court has not set aside Ext.P4. But, this court had only permitted to pay the amount under the special recovery scheme in ten equal monthly instalments. The special recovery scheme has contemplated payment at 15% in terms. Probably that is why Ext.P4 is not quashed. I feel that in order to avoid confusion, it is necessary to quash Ext.P4. Accordingly, R.P. is allowed and writ petition is disposed of as follows. Ext.P4 is quashed and the writ petitioners 2 to 4 are permitted to pay off the amount remaining under the special recovery scheme as stated in the earlier judgment meaning thereby that they will have to pay interest at 15%. The respondents are permitted to pay off the amount remaining with 15% interest in five equal monthly instalments, first of which shall be paid on or before 1.7.2009 and the further instalments shall be paid on or before the first working day of the succeeding months. RP.1168/08 : 3 : If the respondents do not remit the amount as aforesaid, it will be open to the writ petitioner to recover the entire amount in lump sum. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge