IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18786 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ NEDUMANGAD HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.384, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NARAYANA PILLAI, EDAVILAKATHU VEEDU, AIYANAD P.O., AIYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18786 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent had availed of a loan of Rs.5,000/- for maintenance of his house, which was granted at 18% interest plus penal interest of 2% in case of default. Default was committed and finally arbitration proceedings were initiated, which resulted in Ext.P3 award, where the Arbitrator directed that the balance amount of Rs.12,553/- be realised with 13% interest on Rs.10,028/- from June, 1994. 2. Against that award, the 2nd respondent filed appeal to the Tribunal, which resulted in Ext.P4. In Ext.P4, Tribunal directed that the 2nd respondent be given credit to the payment of Rs.5,000/- which he made subsequent to the award and directed that the balance amount of Rs.7,553/- be paid with 12% interest from the date of suit till realisation. It was also directed that the liability be discharged in monthly instalments of Rs.1,500/-. It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed by the society. 3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that after mortgaging the property of the society, the WPC 18786/09 :2 : 2nd respondent had unauthorisedly alienated the same and that in respect of that allegation criminal cases are pending. In my view, independent of Exts.P3 and P4, since the petitioner is entitled to prosecute the criminal case, Ext.P3 award or Ext.P4 judgment of the Tribunal cannot cause any prejudice to it. In any case, since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P3, reduction of 1% interest given by the Tribunal in Ext.P4 is too inconsequential to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp