IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 10601 of 2008(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O.V.GOPALAN, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, BALUSSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, BALUSSERY AD BRANCH, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 004. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10601 OF 2008 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P7. By Ext. P5, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No. 3885 of 2008 filed by the petitioner directing that if the petitioner remits 50% of the amount demanded the bank will consider the request of the petitioner for slashing the amounts stated in Ext. P5. As is seen from Ext. P7, the bank has considered the request and has informed him, upto what level can the bank slash the interest that has been levied on the petitioner. Dissatisfied with Ext. P7 this writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention that is raised is that following Ext. P5 petitioner was not called for any negotiation. In my view, Ext. P5 does not oblige the bank to hold any negotiation with the petitioner, particularly when what has been directed in Ext. P5 is that the bank should consider reduction from the amount that is due to them. This, the bank can certainly decide on its own and a negotiation W.P.(C) No. 10601 OF 2008 -2- with the petitioner would not be necessary. 3. Since in Ext. P7 the bank has indicated the amount that is to be paid by the petitioner to the bank for discharging the liability it is now upto the petitioner to avail of the chance. I do not find anything wrong in Ext. P7. 4. But, however, fact remains that 50% of the liability has already been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext. P5 judgment. Now what remains is only payment of balance amount. This, the petitioner will be permitted to pay in 3 equal monthly instalments, the first of which will be payable before the end of April, 2008 and the subsequent instalments before the end of May and June, 2008. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-