IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17364 of 2008(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.DAKSHAYANI AMMA, AGED 44 YEARS, KRISHNA SADAN, ALANELLOOR PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.4329, HEAD OFFICE, PB NO.8, MALAPPURAM- 676505, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, MELATTUR BRANCH. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV.SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN FOR R1 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.17364 OF 2008(P) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who availed a loan in 2002 with a repayment period of 108 instalments, faced recovery proceedings before the Arbitrator the very next year. That resulted in an ex-parte award. He filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Ext.P2 appeal contains grounds referable to the question of absence and also touching the merits of the claim of the bank. He had also raised a plea that the rate of interest charged was excessive. Recording that the arguments advanced was only as regards interest, the Tribunal interfered with the award only to the extent of slashing the post decree interest to some extent. This again was done on the basis that the writ petitioner had not appeared before the Arbitrator and filed written statement disclosing any legitimate circumstances to reduce the interest any further. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the bank quite in extenso. 3. Having particular regard to the fact that the repayment period was quite spread out and a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- was availed in connection with running of a cinema theatre and because the loan is supported by collateral security, it was inappropriate that the W.P.(C) No.17364/2008 - 2 - impugned Exts.P1 and P3 came without the petitioner being heard on the merits. On the basis of the materials on record, I am satisfied that petitioner was entitled to further opportunity of being heard and hence, is entitled to a further opportunity of hearing in the Arbitration proceedings. In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned Exts. P1 and P3 and the parties are ordered to appear before the Arbitrator on 18th July, 2008 so that, that authority can commence proceedings de-novo and fix date for further proceedings. It is further ordered that to enable the petitioner to move the bank to work out ways and means, if any, as may be acceptable to the bank, for reviving the loan transaction by paying off the entire outstandings in terms of the conditions of the loan, the Arbitrator shall not finalise proceedings within a period of three months. However, all these will be on further condition that the petitioner will remit to the Bank an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within two weeks and another Rs.3,00,000/- within one month. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/19-6-08 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.