IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15739 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ THE GENERAL MANAGER, GURUVAYOOR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.F1652,GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ MELEZHATH SREEMATHI AMMA, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.SREEMATHI AMMA,PUTHANPALLY P.O., GURUVAYOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15739 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P6, the judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal in AP No.6/06. 2. Facts of the case are that in 1993, respondent had availed of a loan with a period of one year and interest at 18.5%. The loan was closed on 14/8/98 and the entire amount claimed was paid. Subsequently the respondent approached the Joint Registrar and contended that penal interest was capitalized by the Bank and that the same was realised while closing the account. The Joint Registrar heard the parties and considering the claim of the respondent passed Ext.P2 directing the Bank to refund an amount of Rs.53,800/- to the respondent. 3. Ext.P2 was challenged by the petitioner Bank in OP No.21235/1999 and by judgment dated 21/6/01, this Court disposed of the case setting aside Ext.P2 and directing the respondent to approach the Joint Registrar. Accordingly, the respondent filed ARC No.1686/01 for recovering Rs.53,800/- resulting in Ext.P5 award, where the petitioner was directed to WPC 15739/09 :2 : refund an amount of Rs.53.800/- as claimed along with interest. The appeal filed to the Tribunal also was rejected by Ext.P6. Subsequently proceedings have been initiated by the respondent as per Ext.P7 and it is at that stage this writ petition is filed by the Bank. 4. The only issue that arises for consideration is the correctness of the finding of the Arbitrator and the Tribunal that penal interest was levied and that the same was capitalized by the petitioner Bank. Although in the pleadings in the writ petition it is contended that the said finding of both the parties is incorrect, a reading of Exts.P5 and P6 referred to above show that this factual position was admitted by the General Manager of the petitioner himself. 5. If that be so, it being an admitted fact, there is absolutely no merit in the contentions that is now raised. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P6 deserves to be upheld and I do so. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp