IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 9021 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW THUNDIYIL, S/O. VARKEY, AGED 60 YEARS, PERUNKUDAL, CHERUPUZHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE SALE OFFICER/ASST. REGISTRAR, KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR-1. 3. THE MANAGER, KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHERUPUZHA BRANCH, CHERUPUZHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 511. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SC, KANNUR DIST.CO.OP.BA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.9021 OF 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION. EXT.R1(a) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.5787 OF 2009 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9021 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.2,70,000/- in the year 2000 on the security of 3 acres of property. When he defaulted repayment of the loan, the bank filed A.R.C.No.188 of 2003 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, an award was passed on 27.1.2004, and in execution of the award, the first respondent bank issued Ext.P1 notice dated 8.1.2008 demanding payment of the sum of Rs.4,90,852/- due as on 1.7.2007 together with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner thereafter moved the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission by filing Ext.P2 application. It is conceded that the said application was rejected by order passed on 22.10.2008. This writ petition is filed contending that after the award was passed the petitioner has remitted various amounts, that he is entitled to the benefit of the one time settlement and that without extending to him the benefit under the one time settlement scheme, the first respondent bank is proposing to sell the security. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks an order directing the respondents to W.P.(C) No.9021 of 2011 2 grant him an opportunity to pay the balance amount due in 24 equal monthly instalments. 2. The learned counsel for the first respondent has filed a statement on 22.6.2011. It is stated that after Ext.P1 notice was issued, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2009 challenging the steps to execute the award and by Ext.R1(a) judgment delivered on 24.2.2009, the said writ petition was dismissed. The first respondent has also stated that the petitioner has failed to advert to the said fact in this writ petition and therefore for that reason alone, the writ petition is liable tobe dismissed. It is also stated that as on 31.5.2011, the balance amount due from the petitioner is Rs.5,15,052/- consisting of Rs.2,70,000/- as principal and Rs.2,45,052/- as interest. The first respondent has also stated that the petitioner has pledged the very same property as security for another loan taken from the State Bank of India and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. When the writ petition was taken up for admission- hearing on 22.3.2011, while admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order staying the execution of the award passed in A.R.C.No.188 of 2003 for a period of two months in the event of the W.P.(C) No.9021 of 2011 3 petitioner depositing with the first respondent the sum of Rupees One Lakh within one month from today. The said direction was complied with and the sum of Rs.1 lakhs was disposed. Later, after the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has issued Circular No.41 of 2011 dated 23.6.2011 extending concessions to persons like the petitioner who had availed loans from the co-operative institutions, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that in the event of the petitioner filing a representation before the first respondent bank claiming the benefit of Circular No.41 of 2011 dated 23.6.2011 on or before 20.7.2011, the first respondent bank shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon within one week from the date of receipt of the petition and thereafter inform the petitioner in writing of the amount due from him. This Court also directed that the petitioner shall on receipt of the intimation, deposit the said amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of the intimation. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.P.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent bank submitted that petitioner applied for one time settlement pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 15.7.2011 and after considering the said application, the petitioner was informed in W.P.(C) No.9021 of 2011 4 writing on 19.7.2011 that in terms of Circular No.41 of 2011, he has to pay the sum of Rs.4,39,729/- towards full and final settlement of the loan before 15.8.2011. Though the petitioner received the said letter on 19.7.2011, he has not paid any amount so far. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that the validity of Circular No.41 of 2011 has been extended till 15.9.2011 by Circular No.62 of 2011 dated 12.8.2011 and therefore if the petitioner pays the amount due as on 19.7.2011, viz., the sum of Rs.4,39,729/- on or before 15.9.2011, the bank will record full satisfaction of the loan and return the document of title deposited by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to pay the amount due as on 19.7.2011, viz., the sum of Rs.4,39,729/- in three instalments. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the bar by the learned counsel on either side. In view of Ext.R1(a) judgment of this Court which has attained finality, the challenge to Ext.P1 sale notice is without any merit. That apart, the petitioner has also suppressed the material fact that he had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2009 in this Court challenging Ext.P1 notice. However, in view of the fact that the first respondent bank is willing to extend to the W.P.(C) No.9021 of 2011 5 petitioner the benefits flowing from Circular No.41 of 2011 dated 23.6.011 which is in force till 15.9.2011 in view of the stipulations contained in Circular No.62 of 2011 dated 12.8.2011, I do not propose to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner's rights are concluded by Ext.R1(a) judgment. The petitioner does not dispute the statement made by the learned counsel for the first respondent bank that the amount due from him as on 19.7.2011 was the sum of Rs.4,39,729/-. That apart, the validity of one time settlement has now been extended till 15.9.2011. Therefore, if the petitioner were to claim the benefit of one time settlement scheme, he should make the payment within the time limit stipulated therein which was originally 15.8.2011 and since been extended to 15.9.2011, the petitioner cannot claim larger period of time to make the payment under the one time settlement. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner can be given time till 15.9.2011 to settle the loan account by paying the sum of Rs.4,39,729/-. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner paying the amount of Rs.4,39,729/- on or before 15.9.2011, the bank shall record full satisfaction of the award in A.R.C.No.188 of 2003, close the loan account and return the W.P.(C) No.9021 of 2011 6 documents of title deposited by the petitioner. If, on the other hand, the petitioner does not deposit the said amount on or before 15.9.2011, it will be open to the bank to proceed to execute the award without extending to the petitioner the benefits flowing from Circular No.41 of 2011 and Circular No.62 of 2011. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9021 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 22nd August, 2011 --------------------------------------