IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10942 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS JOSEPH, T.C. NO. 46/559 NEAR CONVENT, AMBALATHARA ROAD, POONTHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KARAMANA BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , REGIONAL OFFICE, STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, OVER BRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R2-R3 BY G.P. SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 10942 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who had availed the housing loan from the respondent bank, happened to be a defaulter, under which circumstances, the bank proceeded with further steps under SRFAESI Act for recovering the due amount, whereupon the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13748/2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by Ext.P5 Judgment, whereby the petitioner was permitted to clear the outstanding liability towards the defaulted E.M.Is as specified therein. It was also observed that, if any two consecutive defaults with regard to the payment of regular E.M.Is were made, the respondent-Bank was at liberty to proceed against the petitioner from the stage where it stood then, for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has satisfied the outstanding liability pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment and the respondent Bank has not furnished any statement of account, refixing the E.M.Is, so as to enable the WPC NO. 10942/2010 -2- petitioner to clear the balance liability. 4. The learned standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment and on satisfying the 'overdue' amount, the loan account of the petitioner was regularised. However, the petitioner did not choose to satisfy the balance liability, under which circumstances, the bank proceeded with further steps, submits the learned Standing Counsel. It is pointed out that, in so far as the E.M.Is were fixed at the time of granting the loan, there was no question of rescheduling the loan and that the position was communicated to the petitioner on 14/11/2009 vide Ext.P15. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit or bona fides in the Writ Petition. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. dpk