IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 35503 of 2009(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SMT. VADAVUMPATTA PADMINI, AGED 65,W/O.LATE ACHUTHAN,PREETHA SADANAM, P.O.KANIYAMPATTA,WYANAD. BY ADV. MR.G.MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REGD NO.II,2626,VYAPARA BHAVAN,BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. KERALA MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REPRESENTEDBY ITS PRESIDENT,REGD.NO.2626, VYAPARABHAVAN, BANK ROAD,CALICUT-673 001. BY ADV. MR.A.KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.35503 of 2009-G ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.3604 of 2009 seeking for a direction to consider Ext.P4 representation preferred therein for enabling the petitioner to clear the liability by providing reasonable concession and allowances and to have the balance liability satisfied by way of instalments. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the matter was considered by the respondent Bank issuing Ext.P3, whereby, out of the total sum of Rs.4,65,106/-, a sum of Rs.15,106/- was reduced and the balance Rs.4.5 lakhs was directed to be satisfied by way of 'three' equal monthly instalments. The petitioner has approached this Court stating that the request made by the petitioner has not been properly considered and hence immediate interference of this Court is necessary. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that necessary concession and allowance have already been extended to the petitioner and that Bank is not in a position to W.P(C) No.35503 of 2009-G 2 provide any further allowance or concession sought for, from the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that in Ext.P2 representation, the petitioner has stated that she is ready and willing to clear the entire loan transaction on settling the same, for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, which according to the Bank is not acceptable at all. 3. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the Writ Petition and the petitioner cannot dictate the terms of the Bank, to have the matter settled. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already complied with the condition imposed while granting the interim order on 10.12.2009 by remitting a sum of Rs.1 lakh, the same is liable to be given credit from the outstanding liability as on date. Taking note of the persuasive submission made from the part of the petitioner as to the plight of the petitioner and also giving due regard to the fact that she has crossed the age of 65 years, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of ‘five’ equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 31st of this month; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected W.P(C) No.35503 of 2009-G 3 on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the due amount as above, it will open to the Bank, to proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab