IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20487 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V. MOHANACHANDRAN CHETTIYAR, S/O. LATE VISHWANATHAN CHETTIYAR, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASWATHY BHAVAN, CHITRA NAGAR, KOWDIAR.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. K.V.SAJEEV KUMAR, S/O. LATE N.K.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT MQ-1, POLICE QUARTERS, MALAYINKEESHU.P.O. TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CO-BANK TOWERS PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTDE,. STATUE BRANCH TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (ARBITRATOR) KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CO-BANK TOWERS PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM. 5. T.S.SURESH BABU, RESIDING AT T.C.VII/13088, PANGODE THIRUMALA, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.20487 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners were sureties to a loan of Rs.50,000/- availed of by the 5th respondent from the 2nd respondent way back in August, 1999. Even going by the pleadings in the writ petition, up to July, 2000, the 5th respondent had paid only Rs.13,673/-. Due to the default thus committed, from November, 2008, the recovery is being effected from the salary of the petitioners, which continues even now. 2. Petitioners submit that prior to the commencement of the recovery, ARC.No.91/2005 was filed by the Bank in which Ext.P2 summons was issued only in April, 2009. It is stated that on receipt of the summons petitioners have filed Ext.P4 written statement, where it is contended that the Bank delayed the recovery, that they should not be penalized for the delay of the Bank and that WP(c).No.20487/09 2 they were willing to settle the liability by paying the amount due till 2004. Yet another contention that is raised is that, despite the default committed and the undertaking given by the principal debtor, agreeing for recovering the amount due from his salary, bank effected recovery only from their salary and that too without any proceedings against the principal debtor. It is at that stage this writ petition is filed praying to direct the Bank to stop further recovery from the petitioners' salary and also to initiate steps against the 5th respondent for realising the dues. 3. From the facts as stated above, it can be seen that, admittedly the petitioners are sureties to the loan availed of by the 5th respondent. Firth respondent committed default and arbitration proceedings have been initiated. Being sureties, the petitioners are liable and their contentions to avoid payment are to be urged before the Arbitrator before whom ARC.No.91/2005 is now pending and for that reason, they cannot seek any relief in this writ petition. WP(c).No.20487/09 3 4. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to urge their contentions before the Arbitrator, I dispose of this writ petition. The petitioners have a complaint against the recovery that is effected from the salary. Now that I have relegated the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Arbitrator, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioners to seek interlocutory orders also. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.20487/09 4