IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11251 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINOJ P.C., S/O.CHOTHI, AGED 32 YEARS, PULIKAYATH HOUSE, HOUSE NO.10/231 VELOOR, KARIMUKAL, PIN - 682308. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KARIMUKAL BRANCH, KARIMUKAL ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PUTHENCRUZ P.O., PIN - 682308, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COCHIN - 682030 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11251 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th April, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent bank on the security of an item of immovable property belonging to a near relative, who is a guarantor to the loan transaction. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to accept the amount offered by the petitioner and to provide instalment facility for the balance amount. The petitioner states that though an Adalat was held on 15.1.2011 as can be seen from Ext.P1 notice and the petitioner was present in the Adalat and had offered to pay a substantial amount and sought an opportunity to pay the balance amount in instalments, the second respondent was not amenable and was insisting on repayment of the entire loan in lump. The petitioner has nowhere stated with clarity the amount which he offered to pay in lump and the number of instalments which he had sought for repayment. Sri.P.V.Surendranath, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though the petitioner was present in W.P(C) NO.11251/2011 -:2:- the Adalat and had offered to discharge the loan he did not thereafter turn up. The learned counsel also submitted that the bank has filed an arbitration case before the Arbitrator to recover the loan amount and that it is pending. 3. From the facts stated above, it is evident that the respondents have filed an arbitration case before the Arbitrator for recovery of the loan. In such circumstances as there is no imminent threat of recovery against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.11251 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 7th April, 2011