IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11955 of 2006(W)
1. S.JAMES VINCENT, ADVOCATE C-21,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GREATOR COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/07/2009
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 11955 OF 2006
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts. P15, P15(a) and P17
whereunder the GCDA has given credit for the payments made by the
petitioner for the building allotted to him and demanding balance Rs.
1,84,206/- together with future interest. When the WPC was filed,
according to the petitioner, there was only outstanding of Rs. 17,891/-
and the petitioner requested this Court to permit the petitioner to remit
the said amount. According to the respondent the balance outstanding
as on 16.3.2006 when Ext.P17 was issued was Rs. 1,84,206/-.
Petitioner is admittedly allottee of a building constructed and delivered
by the GCDA on down payment of Rs. 2 lakhs and on payment of
balance consideration in monthly instalment of Rs. 2943/-. The first
instalment was to be paid on expiry of 30 days from the date of giving
possession which was on 13.4.1987. Even though respondent has
disputed the date of possession as 9.4.1987, I do not think the same will
make much of a difference. In any case petitioner made payment of
2
first instalment on 12.5.1987 and it should be taken as the due date for
payment of first instalment. However, it is seen from Ext.P15(a) issued
by GCDA that petitioner was not regular in payment of instalments, in
as much as there were months when no payment was made and in
certain months petitioner made payment of two instalments together.
The terms of allotment and agreement for sale produced in Court
clearly establish beyond doubt that petitioner was liable to pay
differential interest and penal interest for belated payment. Even
though petitioner paid 168 instalments of the balance consideration,
much of the payments got absorbed in interest in terms of sale
agreement. Petitioner’s contention to accept the payments as full
discharge of liability is in effect against the provision for interest which
GCDA rightly declined. Therefore petitioner’s claim that liability is
discharged cannot be accepted and I reject this contention. The balance
is only working out of the actual liability. Counsel for the GCDA
submitted that Government has waived penal interest of around Rs.
56,000/- and the balance is shown in Ext.P17. After hearing both sides,
I find that the dispute is only about the quantum of liability which is a
3
matter of working out by an accountant and not by this Court. Terms
of agreement pertaining to rates of payment, default and interest
liability, are clear. If petitioner is not satisfied with GCDA account, it
is for the petitioner to engage a chartered accountant at his cost to
work out the liability along with accountant of the GCDA. I give an
opportunity to the petitioner to engage a chartered accountant at his
cost, who will work out the liability with the accountant of the GCDA
and I am sure there can be no surviving dispute in the working out of
the balance liability after giving credit in terms of the agreement. On
the other hand, if the petitioner wants to solve the problem once and
for all, I feel petitioner can be given an opportunity to pay the balance
without any liability for future interest from 16.3.2006 till date of
payment, provided petitioner pays balance amount of Rs.1,66,350/-
within a period of one month from today. If engaged by the petitioner,
Chartered Accountant will work out the interest liability after giving
credit for the payments made by the petitioner with reference to the
date on which payments were made in co-ordination with the
accountant of GCDA. Chartered Accountant is given one month’s time
4
to work out the liability and produce it before the GCDA for them to
proceed to recover the amount so determined by him with GCDA.
However, if liability as on 16.3.2006 is not settled by making payment
as above, GCDA will be free to charge interest on the determined
amount till date of payment or recovery.
W.P.C. is disposed of as above.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
5