IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4972 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. P. RAMAN PILLAI, ANA KOTTU, VAZHUVELIL, KONNAMANKARA, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PATHANAMTITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 4365,PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SPECIAL ARBITRATOR, CUM SALE OFFICER, PATHANAMTITTA DIST. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 4365, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SC SRI T P PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4972 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a housing loan and defaulted in repayment. An arbitration proceeding was initiated on 31.7.2004. That led to Ext.P1 award. Tribunal has confirmed that award and has given the petitioner the opportunity to pay off the outstandings @ Rs.25,000/- per month after giving due credit to the amounts paid pending the revision petition. Though the limited submission made on behalf of the petitioner is for a further reduction in the rate of monthly instalments, I am not impressed. This is because the total accruals gets an interest component of 16% being added on and it would not be in the interest of any debtor to seek further spread over of instalments and suffer more liability by way of interest. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned decision of the Tribunal. 2. But, there appears to be something that requires attention of the bank. The entire loan transaction is for a larger WP(C)4972/2009 2 period and if the petitioner had continued to maintain that transaction and enjoyed it, he could have got a larger period for repayment. Therefore, notwithstanding the award, which has become final, if the bank considers any request of the petitioner for regularising the transaction, it would be open to the parties to get appropriate sanction from the competent statutory authority and deal with the transaction accordingly. Otherwise, the petitioner will continue to make payment in terms of the decision of the Tribunal. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/6/3