IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31021 of 2010(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VALLAMATTOM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PANDAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 672 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER THOMAS K.VALLAMATTOM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PULIMOOTTIL ARCADE, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 584. R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31021 of 2010 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had availed of a short term loan of Rs.30 lacs as early as on 11-04-2001. The loan was payable with 15% interest and 2% penal interest on default. The liability ought to have been discharged before 01-04-2003. Default was committed resulting in Revenue Recovery proceedings for realising the dues. 2. It is stated that, when the dues were about Rs.72 lacs, in 2008, petitioner applied for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. According to the Corporation, OTS was not available for loan such as the one availed by the petitioner and despite this, by Ext.P7, they agreed to waive the default interest of Rs.3,03,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner did not pay the balance amount as required in Ext.P7. 3. Instead, petitioner again made Ext.P8 application for the benefit of OTS Scheme. In reply by Ext.P9, he was W.P.(C) No.31021/10 : 2 : called upon to pay 50% of the liability before 31-12-2008, which again was not paid, as a result of which, the offer made by Ext.P9 stood cancelled. However, on 31-03-2010, petitioner made another payment of Rs.15 lacs and with the payments so made, petitioner made a total payment of more than Rs.74 lacs. Now, the request made by the petitioner is that he should be given the benefit of waiver of penal interest as offered by the Corporation by Ext.P7. 4. However, counsel for the Corporation resisted the prayer. According to him, by not paying the amounts as required in Ext.P7, petitioner lost the offer made by the Corporation. It is also his case that the offer made by Ext.P9 stands cancelled, since the petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed by the Corporation. He, therefore, points out that the amount indicated in Ext.P11 is due from the petitioner and, therefore, he has to pay the same. 5. Irrespective of the submission made by the respondents, it is a fact that against the loan of Rs.30 lacs W.P.(C) No.31021/10 : 3 : availed of by the petitioner in 2001, petitioner has so far paid more than Rs.90 lacs and he is left with a balance liability of Rs.5,93,818/- as on 01-10-2010. In view of the substantial payments so far made by the petitioner, I feel it is only appropriate that the request of the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P7, should be considered by the first respondent. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition directing that if the petitioner remits Rs.2,85,000/-, within two weeks from today, it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation before the first respondent, for the benefit of Ext.P7. It is directed that, if such a representation is made, the first respondent will consider the request, duly adverting to the facts thus pointed out herein above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks