IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30578 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SABU THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, KULANGARA HOUSE, KAPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI - 20. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, CANARA BANK, ALUVA, ALUVA - 2. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 30578 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P4 demand notices issued by the first respondent. The matter relates to 'Margin Money Loan' availed by the petitioner with respect to a Small Scale Industry established, engaged in manufacturing 'Wire-Cut Bricks'. According to the petitioner, he had availed a loan from the 2nd respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs during the year 2001 and the 'Margin Money Loan' was allowed on the basis of arrangements made with the 2nd respondent Bank. 2. It is contended that, as per terms of the relevant scheme, the 'margin money loan' will be disbursed only through the Bank from where the industry is availing financial facility. But in this case, after submitting application, the petitioner was not informed about any disbursal of the amounts nor about any sanction of the margin money loan, is the contention. 2 WP(C) No. 30578/2010 Assertion of the petitioner is that, he had never obtained any amount from the first respondent as 'margin money loan'. Under such circumstances, the demand raised in Exts.P1 and P4 notices is totally unsustainable and the petitioner is not liable for payment of any amount due to the first respondent, is the contention. However, it is mentioned that on receipt of Ext.P1 demand, the petitioner had submitted a request to the 2nd respondent for furnishing statement of accounts in order to verify whether any amount of 'margin money loan' was credited. But the Bank is not furnishing any such statement. It is further mentioned that the loan account maintained with the 2nd respondent was settled and closed and the petitioner was not given credit with respect to payment of any 'margin money loan'. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is mentioned that, 'margin money loan' to the tune of Rs.1,33,000/- was sanctioned to the petitioner's unit 3 WP(C) No. 30578/2010 under the 'margin money loan scheme', as per order dated 28.09.2002 of the first respondent. A Demand Draft was drawn for the said amount, dated 08.10.2002, and it was forwarded to the 2nd respondent on 23.10.2002. Copy of the covering letter through which the Demand Draft was forwarded with copy endorsed to the petitioner is produced as Ext.R1(a). It is further stated that, eventhough the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of Ext.P1 notice, no remittance was made and finally Ext.P4 demand was issued through registered post. The petitioner has not remitted any amount, till date. 4. Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted that an amount of Rs.1,33,000/- forwarded from the first respondent was credited to the loan account of the petitioner on 29.10.2002. It is stated that the said amount was given due credit while settling the loan account. 5. Facts being as stated above, I am of the view that 4 WP(C) No. 30578/2010 there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, against the demand now raised under Exts.P1 and P4. It is evident that an amount of Rs.1,33,000/- was sanctioned as margin money loan and it was credited in the loan account of the petitioner in the 2nd respondent Bank. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader that going by the provisions of scheme in question the amount of loans sanctioned under the 'margin money loan scheme' can be paid only through the Bank from where the entrepreneur had taken financial assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises dispute regarding correctness of the demand pointing out some discrepancy in the amount demanded in Exts.P1 and P4. But going by the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, there is no basis for any such allegation. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the first respondent or any other authority concerned seeking clarification regarding correctness of the amounts in 5 WP(C) No. 30578/2010 demand or seeking consideration of any waiver of the amounts. 7. Further apprehension raised by the petitioner is that, the 2nd respondent may not give due credit with respect to the amount received as margin money loan while settling the loan account. It will be left open to the petitioner to seek clarification and to enforce rights if any available in this regard against the 2nd respondent. 8. Under the above circumstances, none of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition is sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however, reserving liberty of the petitioner as mentioned above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc