IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19636 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PENNAMA SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.LATE DEVASSIA, ILLICKAL HOUSE, CHENAD P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KADANAD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (NO.K-2) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KADANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SPECIAL SALES OFFICER, (KIDAGOOR SCB GROUP), OFFICE OF THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES, MEENACHIL, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19636 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that her deceased husband had availed of a loan of Rs.2 lakhs, and she had availed of a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the respondent Bank way back in 1994. Default was committed. Arbitration proceedings were initiated and awards have been rendered in favour of the 1st respondent. These awards were not challenged and have become final. The petitioner also admits that, on an earlier occasion, in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, the number of which is not disclosed, this Court granted instalment facility, and that direction also was not complied with. Now the Bank has issued Exts.P1 & P2 sale notices proposing to sell the plot of 1.35 acres of land and another plot of 85 cents of land mortgaged for availing of the above loans, for realising an amount of Rs.7,07,205/ and Rs.3,45,929/- respectively. It is at this stage, the writ petition is filed. 2. One of the contentions raised is that the interest levied WP(C) No.19636/2009 -2- on the loans is in contrary to the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The other is regarding the non-compliance of KCS Rules. 3. In my view, none of these submissions carry any weight at this distance of time. The awards have become final, and therefore, these contentions cannot be appreciated. That apart this Court will not be justified in granting instalment facility to the petitioner for the reason that on a previous occasion, instalment facility was granted to the petiitoner, which also has not been complied with. For these reasons, I am not incliened to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg