IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18941 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.N. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O NARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS, THONNAKKARA THAKIDIYEL HOUSE, , VELLAD P.O., PATTAKKALAM, ALAKKOD(VIA), PIN-670571 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CHAIRMAN, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, P.O.KANNUR, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISRICT.670001 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KANNUR.670001 3. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KANNUR MAIN BRANCH, KANNUR. 670001 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.( C) NO.18941/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE LOAN ACCOUNTS SOD SSI 1/08 AND OSL SSI 1/08. P2:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DT.D 2.8.07 ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.D 20.1.2011 IN WPC. 34993/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 1.3.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 5.7.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18941 of 2011-P -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to reduce the rate of interest on principal sum of loan amount and to adjust the excess amount recovered from him to the sum due towards principal. There is a prayer to grant him three months time to settle the loan account. Pleadings show that the petitioner had availed two loans of Rs. 12 lakh each. Default was committed and thereupon the bank initiated proceedings under the Securization Act. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No. 34993/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 reads as follows: "6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery, provided the petitioner remits the amount in arrears (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses, if any due) in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.1.2011 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months. Petitioner shall also make payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the -2- W.P.(C)18941/2011 respective months along with the above said payment. 7. If payment of the dafaulted amount is regularised as directed above, respondents 1 and 2 shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default, if any, committed in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of proceedings initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other forum". 2. Obviously, payment as directed was not made and petitioner apprehends further proceedings by the Bank. It is at that stage, after making Exts.P4 and P5 representations seeking reduction in the rate of interest, this writ petition is filed. 3. As far as the prayer for reduction of rate of interest is concerned, that is a matter governed by the terms of the loan agreement between the petitioner and the respondents and this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with such contractual rights and obligations. -3- W.P.(C)18941/2011 4. As far as the prayer of the petitioner for granting time for settlement is concerned, that again in my view is not possible in this writ petition, since this Court has already issued directions specifying the payments to be made vide by paragraphs 6 to 8 of Ext.P3 judgment. If at all, the petitioner wants any modification to the said terms, the remedy available to the petitioner is to get the directions in the judgment modified, rather than filing another writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. rka -4- W.P.(C)18941/2011