IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18710 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. V.VASUDEVAN BHATTATHIRI RESIDING AT HARISREE, PUTHUSSERI BHAGOM VAYALA P.O., PARAKKODE, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. BALU VASUDEV, OF, DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GNERAL ) PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE ENATHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 2529, ENATHU P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA REPRESNTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY GP SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.18710 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the third respondent acting on Exts.P7 to P9 representations, made on the fundamental premise that the maturity amounts due under Exts.P1 and P2 fixed deposit receipts have not been released by the third respondent bank. 2. The issues between the parties are as to whether the third respondent could have reduced the rate of interest; whether any such reduction was unilateral and if so, as to whether it was permissible? 3. Following the interim order dated 30-6- 2008, the principal amount and the admitted WPC18710/08 -:2:- interest has been released by the third respondent. Therefore, the only question that survives for consideration is the determination of the rate of interest that would apply in terms of the contract between the petitioners and the third respondent. That is an issue which has to be resolved under Section 69(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 by the competent arbitrator, in view of the conflicting plea on the rights of parties, referable to the terms of the contract. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take recourse to such procedure, this case is closed leaving open all the contentions of the petitioners and the third respondent. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.4.8.